Page protected

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox warning yellow.svg This is a discussion archive created in December 2008, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.


Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)

Regular news site. Looks like it supposed to be removed a while ago, but it still isn't allowed.[1][2] Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Perennial request, site was spammed heavily and has other issues. Whitelisting of individual pages may be acceptable if they can be proved to be copyright clean. -- Guy 15:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
    • I've wanted to use use it in a few AfDs. What's so bad about this site? Seems like a normal entertainment news site to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • This is blacklisted on meta. If you want the blacklisting removed completely, you need m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Proposed_removals. If you want to permit use of a single page on that site, please specify the page. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Not done Stifle (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to add a page ( to the list of ELs for Mount Huang as it has a useful description of the area but is in too much detail and not rigorously enough sourced for me to put into the text of the article. I don't know what sort of spamming the was originally blacklisted for, but I'm just wondering if it can be un-blacklisted in order to put the subpage that I mentioned above into the ELs of the article I'm working on. Of course, this is just a minor question; if there is a major spam problem with that site and you have good reasons to keep it blacklisted, I'm ok with that; I just thought I'd ask, since I don't know the reasons behind why this site was blacklisted.

(By the way, I recently posted this same message at meta-wiki, before I had noticed the spam whitelist here).—Politizertalk • contribs ) 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been unblocked at meta [3]; can you try again and see if it works for you? Stifle (talk) 09:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it's working now! Sorry it took me so long to respond to this...I wasn't paying attention to this page. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, closing as moot. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This site is a reliable source of top online professional poker players, which includes reports, analysis and interviews with bylines and dates. it appears the site was blacklisted due to a single purpose account who replaced existing references or added to the external links sections of multiple poker player articles which may have been COI additions by this editor (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or the editor may had just been a fan of the site, however I believe the SPA should if anything been warned or if need be temporary blocked for any type of potential conflict rather then outright blacklisting of the site, I was going to reference an article on Ylon Schwartz by Simon Hopper of the blacklisted site (below) when I saw the bl notice.▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC) [1]

  1. ^ Hopper, Simon (2008-07-18). [(removed) "November Nine Player Focus: Ylon Schwartz"] Check |url= value (help). Poker Verdict. Retrieved 2008-10-16.

The site has useful information on the Chiquitania, a region in the east of Bolivia. Specifically I am working on an article about the Jesuit Missions which are a UNESCO World Heritage Site and would like to use and cite some of the information from that site. Looking at the archive it appears that the site was blocked due to a spamming incident on the Dutch wikipedia. Since the spammer has been blocked, there is no need to block this site anymore. bamse (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What specific page would you like to use from that site? Stifle (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of the items under "Jesuit Missions", especially "History", "Culture", "Churches" and maybe some of the pages on individual villages ("San Xavier", "Concepcion", etc.) bamse (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you please provide the URLs (starting with and which article you plan to use them in? Alternatively, if you want the site removed entirely, see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to have the following pages removed:, and The article I want to use them in is the one above. It is still in preparation on my user page but will be moved some time soon to "Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos". bamse (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is now on wikipedia here. Is there any hope that the pages will be delisted from the spam list?bamse (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done Stifle (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a blog run by faculty at the Stern School at NYU which allows the business faculty at that university to discuss current economic developments. Another user has tried to add it to some relevant pages as an External link, and has asked my assistance. It seems very legit, and might provide some good background and direction for finding additional sources for several articles. Can individual blogspot pages get whitelisted? NJGW (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Blogs aren't generally considered reliable sources. How is this one different? Stifle (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The posters are faculty at the New York University Stern School of Business. But this isn't to use it as a source... rather to mention in EL's in articles directly related to the blog (such as economic crisis of 2008, financial crisis of 2007-2008, the school's own article, etc.). I believe this qualifies under wp:ELYES #4 ("Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."). NJGW (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 Done Stifle (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add a link (the late 19th century biography of Jay Gould) to the Wikipedia page Rutland and Washington Railroad, which discusses how Gould obtained control over the company. -- Eastmain (talk) 18:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Are the reasons that led to being blacklisted still valid? The Virtual American Biographies would be useful for the biographies of other 19th-century Americans. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
    • The article which I would like to add is a scan of the Jay Gould article from "Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, edited by James Grant Wilson, John Fiske and Stanley L. Klos. Six volumes, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887-1889 and 1999." A printed encyclopedia from 1887-1889 would normally be regarded as reliable, I think, and I don't think that the people who scanned in the article deliberately introduced any errors. There might be some spelling errors as a result of problems with the OCR process, but I didn't notice any. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
  • {shrug}. Just cite the source. Guy (Help!) 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
There was lengthly discussion over this at the time.. Appelton's Cyclopedia (the original) contained a notable number of inaccuracies and even invented people. Apparently this was one of the things the work was noted for. That said, I think you will find a portion of this work is available over at Wikisource. --Versageek 00:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Not done Stifle (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I need a single URL from TVRage adding to the whitelist - I can't figure out the regex. Thanks. fish&karate 07:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Why add it, when it's not a reliable source?
    • Sez who? Its reliable for what it's needed to cite here. fish&karate 07:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
      O RLY? What's the editorial board and content review process? Guy (Help!) 14:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
      Not done Stifle (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Another suite one. This article has an interview with notable author nicola Griffith, answering questions not available elsewhere. I want to use it to show her opinion on genre in the Homosexuality in SF article. I consider it to be reliable enough for this, even if the site as a whole is not. thanks!Yobmod (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Do you have evidence that this is what it purports to be, namely an interview with that subject by the suite101 user, and not either a fake or a copy form some other source without attribution? Guy (Help!) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
    • No, there is no reason to think it would not be a real interview, except the fact it is prominently online and has not been removed or complained about by the interviee. What reasons do you have to believe it is not? I cannot prove a negative, but that is the case for all sources. Yobmod (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually we can prove this one. Griffith links to the interview herself from her home page: (unless Griffith is in on the conspiracy too :) -- SiobhanHansa 10:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Don't listen to Siobhan: he and Dick Cheney are in on it, too. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 12:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
          • It's a fair cop. Dick Cheney invited Griffith and I hunting and we had to acquiesce in order to avoid any "accidents". -- SiobhanHansa 15:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, when we've gotten requests from established editors (like Yobmod) we've usually whitelisted interviews with the subjects of our articles. We've assumed that is prominent enough on Google that they'd get spotted and nailed if they put up a fake interview. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 12:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)  Done Stifle (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I need this whitelisted because it contains information and a quote needed for a reference on the release date of the Lamb of God album Wrath (album). This is Lamb of God's official Myspace and Blog. Thanks DerMetzger (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Declined; myspace and blogs are not reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

two specific links

I never thought I would request whitelisting links within this site; but I can't locate any better sources to preserve a NPOV in the Ghost Hunters article.

Their Halloween 2008 episode brought out criticism of several elements of the show - which is fine. But to maintain neutrality in the article, it should contain the reply to the criticism as well. And the blogs of the two main personalities on the show seem to be the only reasonable source for the response. So ... here are two links that I would like to have whitelisted:

  • Jason Hawes reply to criticism:
  • Grant Wilson reply to criticism:

This is for the section in Ghost_Hunters#Criticism that addresses the 2008 issues. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Update: It looks like the criticism has been removed here. It was pretty biased and more verbose the way it was written; but I think it is appropriate to restore a condenced version of the criticism, but only if the above responses to it are available in order to maintain a neutral tone. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Symbol declined.svg Declined; myspace is not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

hi there. i recently heard a piece on the radio about Jonty Haywood and his two creations and there is a recording of the radio show hosted at and i tried to link to the recording after adding some information from the radio show to the Jonty Haywood article, but i can't because the domain is meta blacklisted. that the show and jonty's appearance on it are genuine can be verified here. i tried just giving the show details but my edits to the article were objected to because verifying the contents involved mentioning the name of a blacklisted site. i didn't know about whitelisting originally so i looked into the blacklisting and found that the reason for blacklisting (site used to have a section encouraging people to vandalise wikipedia), no longer applies, so i requested unblacklisting. the unblacklisting request was denied as i was told whitelisting would be the more appropriate route and advised to request whitelisting instead, so, here i am :) the specific url on the site that i need whitelisted is thanks! xxx Jessi1989 (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Is there no end to Haywood's self-promotion on Wikipedia? We don't need it. Oh, and the mp3 would be a copyvio unless linked direct from the original publisher, see the section on copyright material in WP:EL. Guy (Help!) 14:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Apparently not. See here and here for more info if you're really bored. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
guy, how is this possibly self-promotion? or are you suggesting that i am haywood? he was interviewed on kerrang radio, i heard the interview, and wanted to use it as a source here. fairly sure that doesn't count as self-promotion. i checked out wp:el, which lead me to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works which says it's fine to link to as long as has the original publisher's permission. is there no end to admins deceptively misinterpreting information on wikipedia? if you think he's hosting his own interview illegally i'm happy to contact him or the DJ to find out.
jamie, as i've said countless times now... the only spamming by any of the users you refer to in your ANI report is jonty303's spamming of 14 articles in feb 2006. you haven't shown me any evidence of spamming caused by the vandalism encouragement. this encouragement has been removed and haywood's wikipedia account unblocked by the consensus of three admins. surely this means i should be able to reference an mp3 hosted on his site? Jessi1989 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Having friends do your self-promotion is still self promotion. The relative amount of energy you've spent on this topic overshadows energy you've spent on anything else combined with the heavy wikilawyering is quite similar to the edit pattern of Rabidfoxes (talk · contribs · logs). OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I commented on the 'spamming' on meta, I'll leave that part of the discussion there (in short, it was inappropriate cross-wiki abuse by multiple accounts, strictly of spamming I don't have proof; but 'cross wiki-abuse by multiple accounts' is enough for blacklisting). Regarding whitelisting, I agree with Guy in the part that the mp3 would be a copyvio of the original (of which kerrang will have the rights). I guess you could try and find either the file on the kerrang-site, or in another published form from them. As such, Symbol declined.svg Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
hi dirk. firstly thank you so much for actually providing me with some diffs to support your reasoning. i understand that if spamming was a genuine problem then this site should not be unblacklisted. regarding the whitelisting though, as i say above, Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works does not say that this link would be a copyvio, so long as the website has permission to host the recording. "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". currently i have no idea if has persmission to host the show, but it would seem a bit cheeky if the owner is hosting it illegally after kerrang gave him an interview. also the link i provided before shows that they regard haywood as a friend of the show. if you doubt that haywood has permission to host the show would you be happy for me to contact the kerrang DJ to find out? do you accept my interpretation of wp:copyright that if he has permission then it is not a copyvio? thanks again for your time and courtesy. Jessi1989 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right there. Still, if kerrang has the same link available, then I would still prefer to link to that, instead of to the mp3 on I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
hey, yes i completely understand. i had tried to find the interview on the kerrang site when i first posted about it on the jonty haywood talk page. i later found it on (i had actually given up looking for it and was just browsing the site). after realising it was blacklisted i had another look on kerrang (now knowing that an mp3 copy existed) but i'm pretty sure it's not there. i found haywood and his site listed in the "friends of the show" page that i linked to above. so do you think it's reasonable to assume that haywood has permission to host it? or should i try contacting and/or the kerrang DJ for confirmation? thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
ok, no reply from the DJ yet but had this to say:

Hey Jessi,

Yes we have permission to host the interview on that page. Alex Baker, the show's producer sent us the mp3 recording for us to put on the site. By the way, be aware that this site seems to have become somewhat of an issue with some Wikipedia editors, so don't get yourself in trouble!

Keep losing ;)


so, as it isn't copyvio, will you approve the whitelisting? thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
We'd need direct correspondence from Kerrang for proof that the copyright is released. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
yeah that's true, but "proof" isn't what WP:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works requires. we just have to make sure we avoid linking to known copyright violations. considering this isn't a known copyright violation, and we have a statement from the site owner that they have permission (and it seems very unlikely that kerrang would have provided haywood with an mp3 of his own interview without permission to host it), i think we can put copyvio concerns to rest, don't you? Jessi1989 (talk) 15:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

ok got a reply from the kerrang DJ (nick margerrison):

Hi Jessi,

I remember Jonty Haywood - I don't have a copy of the interview to hand though. Maybe you could tell them that I've given you consent to use the audio?

I don't know how all that stuff works but this email is my consent for you to use that audio as you will, so long as it's non-profit &c.


Jessi1989 (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Open an WP:OTRS ticket and have the email sent there. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
i got in touch with the OTRS copyright permissions guy (Bastique) asking how to do this and he told me that copyvios by other sites are not of concern to either OTRS or black/whitelisting. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll whitelist this link specifically for the use as a reference on Jonty Haywood. Please note, that if this link gets used outside that page it will be removed here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done by Dirk Beetstra. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Happy holidays everyone! I've been working on a draft on my talk page for I am getting ready to move it out of my talk page soon (any feedback is welcome before I do)

I'm writing to ask that links to be removed from the spam list for both my talk page, while I clean up the ref's - and on the future wiki page. As you will see, links to the site are used in the reference section of the article. At this time, i've left the links without the 'http' so that you can see where the ref's point to. EBMdoc (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Amazing, a single purpose account whose contributions to Wikipedia are almost exclusively to argue for links to a website, and who has gone on to write an article about that website. That is such a rare occurrence! Guy (Help!) 17:49, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi Guy. It is true that I have spent most of much time working on this project here at wiki. I've apologized already, and apologize again, for inappropriate links that I made in the past. I've tried very hard to focus on creating a well referenced article on my talk page (which is what other admins suggest I do), and I am open to any feedback about how to make the article better. I do look forward to contributing more broadly to the wiki in the near future. EBMdoc (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Not done — no indication of how the link would benefit Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a request to have whitelisted, so that it can be listed on the Deep Forest wikipedia page. is a reputable and valuable source for information on Deep Forest. It is also currently the only active Deep Forest site, and the source for much of the information listed in the wikipedia entry on this group. This site seems to have been blacklisted due to a dispute as to whether it should be listed at all, and the repeated removal and addition of the link. This issue has now been resolved, and it is agreed that this site should be listed.

The has already been whitelisted on the Finish Deep Forest wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Not done; whitelisting would be considered on the application of an established editor. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This proposed whitelist is for the article contraceptive sponge. It appears the Today Sponge has gone off the market again, with next to zero media attention. I would like to use this article as a reference to support a statement, "As of June 2008[update], the Today Sponge is not being manufactured." LyrlTalk C 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Associated Content is basically a blog; anyone can publish there. I'm not sure how that would meet the reliable sources requirement. Do any of the sources at the end of her posting support your statement; could you use those? Kuru talk 02:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest adding something to the effect of "...the Today Sponge is no longer on the market as of 2008 {{cite needed}}." OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, if there's next to no media attention, why would we want to include it anyway? I'm always very wary of arguments for unreliable sources based on the fact that no reliable sources exist. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The sources at the end of the article show PP's website is out of date (still showing Today as available) and the takeover and bankruptcy of the company that holds the manufacturing rights; they do not support that Today is currently off-market.
Using an unreliable source for an obscure topic (or an obscure view on a popular topic) is usually used to put fringe claims into an article, and I agree that should be avoided. I know the standard for Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, but it bugs me to have an article I work on have a verifiably false statement. The absence of Today sponges from the market is easy enough for anyone to verify by asking their local pharmacist; it's not an obscure or fringe fact.
If it's preferable that I add the statement with a "fact" tag, that seems a reasonable solution. I'll check back to see what you guys think. LyrlTalk C 01:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Not done. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I propose that the following site should be allowed on the Whitelist: (preceded by http://). I believe that visitors to the related Wikipedia article (Sloche at might benefit from and enjoy seeing actual examples of the candies & links to the drinks listed in the article. The site includes actual pictures of the candy packages - this is useful as merely stating in the Wikipedia article that the candy packaging is weird and was actually in one case banned, piques curiosity and visitors might like to see what the actual packages look like. I have provided photos & descriptions and will be updating the blog site on a semi-irregular basis. These packages are no longer available for sale in Quebec so the blogger website is the only place they can now be seen. Signed: (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Declined Blogs are rarely reliable sourcses. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... would you please reconsider in light of the fact that the proposed link was actually approved ( when it pointed to the same content on an "awardspace" site? I have now simply migrated the content over to blogger due it's being easier for me to manage in that layout / format. The "awardspace" site had some problems with loading, frames, etc. I think you will find the content upon the proposed-to-be-added blogger site, to be extremely relevant to what is discussed in the Wikipedia entry for "Sloche", despite the obvious dubiousness of it's being hosted upon blogger. Blogger hosting is for convenience only. The content upon the blogger site is reliable and is linked through to from other sources dealing with "Sloche" issues: example: I do not know of any other place upon the internet where Sloche products are amalgamated & showcased to the extent they have been on the proposed-to-be-added blogger site, especially considering the "officiel" Sloche site is in French only. Thanks. Signed: Mysterry1706 (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • No. That article is questionable in the extreme and this source would do nothing to remedy that. It needs vastly better independent sources, not just a collection of stories about one person's claim of racism. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The blogger site provides the following, which are relevant to the Wikipedia entry for "Sloche": - Pictures of Sloche-brand candy packages - the Wikipedia entry for Sloche mentions that "Couche-Tard also sells gummy candies under the Sloche brand." The blogger site is the only one I am aware of upon the Internet which provides examples of all of the Sloche candy packages, rather than solely the single "racist" package. - Pictures / video of Sloche-brand drink advertisements - which highlight the "controversial" or "aggressive" marketing campaign used by the Sloche company, mentioned in the Wikipedia entry: "Sloche has gathered much publicity through an aggressive (and sometimes controversial) marketing campaign." - A picture of a Sloche-brand drink cup. The Wikipedia entry indicates: "The oversized Sloche plastic cups are covered with humorous slogans". - Translation from the French used by Sloche: the Wikipedia entry indicates: "It should be noted that the flavor names in French are often nonsensical or are based on corrupted English expressions".

Again, the link was approved previously when it pointed to the same content upon an "awardspace" site: (

The blogger site's content is relevant to the Wikipedia entry for Sloche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysterry (talkcontribs) 04:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Mysterry (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The matter is closed. Blogs do not meet WP:Reliable sources standards, as they are self-published. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There are three excellent articles (actually, one article in three different parts) on the subject of "Pants roles" in opera, found on Suite101, that I am trying to add as External Links (only) to the unsourced article on Breeches role:

Can these three URLs be unblocked? They are the most comprehensive info I see on the subject on the Internet. They will NOT be used as citations, only as External Links. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Author is not identified, and this is a subject well covered in scholarly sources. I don't see the need for essays by unidentified writers on what is effectively a self-publishing or blog site. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol declined.svg Declined per Guy. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish to whitelist a serious article about a humorous topic (spoonerisms) by Rick Wales:

I don't know the history of and note only one specific block (, which IMnsHO seems well deserved. However, it would help to reference other useful articles.

Wiki target articles:

Thank you.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, we have an entire article about squidoo!
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
The source doesn't pass WP:RS, it's a site where anyone can create and host an article. The fact that there is a Wikipedia article about Squidoo doesn't make its contents trustworthy; there's a Wikipedia article about YouTube, but that doesn't mean we can use it as a source. I don't see any merit in whitelisting this if we can't use it in an article anyway. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
READ the article before commenting. The author is listed on the page as Rick Wales, writing under the name Moby D, who writes articles on humor. (And, frankly any article on the internet can be written by anyone!) A perusal of the article shows it is well-written and sourced.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol declined.svg Declined. There are sufficient scholarly sources on the good Speverend Rooner that we don't need Squidoo, a self-publishing site where whatever the credibility of the author, no form of editorial review has taken place. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Handan’s information portal with comprehensive information about Handan in its diversity. A multimedia window on the most important geographic, socio-cultural and political aspects of Handan.News,Events,Partys,etc!

Handan Only ENGLISH Website,NO AD,NO SPAM.!

Handan Airport

Handan Hotel QA —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol declined.svg Declined, no credible reason given for whitelisting. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been attempting to improve the Star Wars marathon article as it has been nominated for deletion. eHow has an interesting article that mentions some things that one wouldn't automatically consider (at least I wouldn't) when organising such an event, and the link would make a useful reference.-- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems fairly harmless,  Done Stifle (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Official Flight of the Conchords Blog

This should be whitelisted because it is the band's official blog. They post news on it. News that should be on the Flight of the Conchords wikipedia article, but one cannot reference to a blog. They announced their second season via this very blog: (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely to whitelist on the request of an IP I'm afraid. Established users would be need to make such a request. --Herby talk thyme 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I established enough? Flight of the Conchords would benefit from links to their official blog. The old official site hasn't been updated for a couple of years, their myspace page seem to be current. The bit to whitelist would be "friendID=58557805", and the specific URL I was attempting to add is Orpheus (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This is  Done although I've taken all the URL up to the friendID. Otherwise anyone could put a superfluous query parameter onto an arbitrary URL and effectively negate the spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Why would you discriminate against an IP? Either the request has merit, or it does not.
~ender 2008-12-26 11:54:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Established users are less likely than IP users to have ulterior motives. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Official I Bet You MySpace blog

  1. I think it should be whitelisted as it is as far as I could find the only, and more important, a quite reliable source for current and future information on the show and behind the scenes developments.
  2. In this case, the article on I Bet You would benefit from it, as I would like to use it as a citation to back up the claim on an upcoming season three. It is currently placed between html comment tags after the relevant sentence.

I hope that this blog or at least this url can be whitelisted, just as Zach Braff's MySpace Blog. Thanks in advance!
Ewald (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts yet? Some MySpace blogs seem to be able to obtain whitelisting. Such as the recently approved MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Another_one_of_Jenna_Fischer.27s_MySpace_blog_entries. Thanks in advance. - Ewald (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done, sorry for the ludicrous delay. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please unblock (

Please unblock . tulumba . com / storeItem.asp?ic=MU9399082EH199, which is a valuable link to the Yayli tanbur page. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I started to have doubts about this domain after I added it to the blacklist, this request confirms those doubts.. I've removed it from the blacklist & placed it on xlinkbot instead.. so we'll call this  Done --Versageek 00:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nba all-star site

While I was editing NBA_All-Star_Game_records after writing as the reference of the changes I've made, I noted that this site was blacklisted. It's a good resource for NBA All-Star historical information, and some pages are more up to date than the official For example, for the records article I was editing, was updated in 2005, and this blacklisted site in 2008.

Some months ago, another user asked in the spanish Spam-blacklist section [4] why this site was blcked.Josedeibiza (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is on the global blacklist. We would consider whitelisting specific URIs at that site on the request of an established editor. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

BikeCyclingReviews site

I have no idea why is in the blacklist. These guys give lots of information about cycling and reviews on bikes, apart from that they answer every day questions to their readers in the FAQ section. This is by no reason a blacklisted site. I'd consider removing them from this black list and definitely whitelisting BikeCyclingReviews again.

The following link is an example of the great work they are doing for cyclists:

After reading Alastair's answer to a readers question, and the discussion created from it, you can figure out that this site deserves to be out of any blacklist at all. bikecyclingreviews contains hundreds of bike related reviews and opinions that can benefit any cycling fan.

-- (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol declined.svg Declined. The request does not address the reasons for blacklisting and does not show how this would be of benefit to the encyclopaedia rather than the site. And yes, I am an every day cyclist. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, how can the request address the reasons for blacklisting, when the requester doesn't know them? -- Zsero (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zsero above, however I find a different reason for, perhaps?, not approving a whitelist. Where does the original requester want to use the link as a reference?
~ender 2008-12-27 12:05:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

official artist myspace pages

For use on This Is Home Please unblock both


If both these blogs can be unblocked via friend Id that would be even better. Thanks --T-rex 14:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a blog. This is an official announcement by the band. The reason I want these sites unblocked is so that they can be used instead of the blog that is currently being used. This is a reliable source. --T-rex 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Symbol declined.svg Declined, blogs are still not reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a reliable source. Simply because the word "blog" is in the url is not the reason to treat it as one. --T-rex 17:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
More specifically, because of this wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Using_self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves
~ender 2008-12-27 12:02:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)


Bio Miracle Bokutte Upa's article needs a citation for Howard Lincoln's comment. The comment was taken from so we only need that page.Bragador (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Symbol declined.svg Declined Stifle (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Removing citation needed from that webpage then, since the blacklist, and the admins refuse to allow the citation. ~ender 2008-12-27 12:09:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
I've re-added it for you. You can read the policy on reliable sources Stifle linked to above. If you can find a source which supports the statement, please replace the tag; if one cannot be found, then the unsupported statement should be removed completely. Thanks. Kuru talk 15:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Symphony in Peril's MySpace blog

I was doing some work to expand the article for the band Symphony in Peril and found that MySpace blog URLs were blacklisted. I would like the following two URLs whitelisted as they pertain to specific announcements directly from the band regarding a member change and the band's breakup:

Theonethird (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have whitelisted this based on the fact that this is the band's blog; that's the one time we link to blogs.
 Done. Sorry you had to wait. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that! Theonethird (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually the links still don't seem to be working. I tried editing the page and they're still blocked. Theonethird (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The second one has been permitted, not the first one. Are they both needed? Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Not done due to lack of response. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an external link in 2B1 Oka article about a soviet self-propelled mortar. The link points to a blog or alike with a real in-depth historical explanation (if you don't know Russian, just look at the photos) to the otherwise very stub wiki-article. First I thought it was a wiki-markup error when saw a whitespace beetween “infolive” and “”, but when tried to correct, I received an error message from spam blocking filter. Please, white list the site, because as for now the link looks broken and is unusable unless extracted manually. (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely to whitelist on the request of an IP I'm afraid. Established users would be need to make such a request. --Herby talk thyme 16:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Herby, do you have a wikipedia policy you're following, or just a personal bias against people who refuse to surrender their anonymity?
~ender 2008-12-27 12:13:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Not done Stifle (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

My edit of the wikipedia page, John Banville, Style, and the references to the irish-fiction links should be permitted. Both links connect to articles germain to the style description on the wikipedia page and both expand the very brief assessment of Banville's style that is provided on the wikipedia page: both articles at those links are fully referenced with direct quotes from Banville's novel, fully referenced quotes from literary critics, and fully referenced definitions in the glossary provided. Also, I'm a freelancer with a Masters degree, a published (not self-published)fiction writer, and a reviewer, etc. What other credentials and references would you need to edit a wikipedia page? So far the style page on Banville lavishly praises his style; in fact there is a lot of discussion about the merit of that style and my edit and linked articles address that discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotrocket (talkcontribs) 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol declined.svg Declined. No policy-based reason given for including this site, which is basically a blog. Sounds like you are trying to cite yourself, in which case it would need to be from a peer-reviewed publication. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC) is okay. Please revert this edit and see the discussion.
-- (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Really. YouTube style self-publishing site for sermons, and this is a reliable source for which article again? Guy (Help!) 17:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol declined.svg Declined, not reliable source, and not requested by an established user. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the band Angra's official MySpace page. Incorrect information has been circulating recently about the band breaking up, and I am trying to fix the Wikipedia entry to reflect the band's official response.

Entry in question: (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Declined, myspace is not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that the only other couple recent requests to link to artist's MySpace pages have all been blocked by the same person, Stifle. If you scroll just a few entries up (the Symphony in Peril whitelist request) you will see the exact same type of request I have made being approved by a different admin. This isn't just some blog or a random Joe's Myspace, it's an official point of communication for the band. I would request this be re-evaluated and not just refused because of some blanket mistrust of anything to do with Myspace. More and more artists are using sites such as this as primary sources of band announcements, and to completely disregard those sites due to to some of the other content hosted on them seems like a rather unfortunate judgment call. Just because an artist chooses to communicate somewhere other than "" doesn't suddenly mean the information is invalid or the credibility suspect. (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's mission is not to assist contact with the band. Their official website should be sufficient, we do not need to link to every single site with which they are associated. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
So, wikipedia should give out un-sourced information, or wrong information because the blacklist won't let people actually cite relevant information?
You go admins, go!!
~ender 2008-12-27 12:18:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

MySpace blog containing professional reviews.

This page contains professional reviews, which will help explain the notability of the band. The article where I will be using the link is Den Saakaldte, and the URL is Thanks. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 10:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  • If it's a professional review then surely it will be published somewhere other than the writer's blog. In any case, I don't think reviews are terribly helpful as suport to encyclopaedic content, they tend to be subjective rather than providing verifiable facts as support for content. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol declined.svg Declined, not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the Myspace page of The Long Blondes (the blog page for, and is used as a reference in "Couples" (album). Currently the URL used in the page is which is a redirect. If anything should be blacklisted it is as it could redirect to any page. --Snigbrook (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The url redirector is now blacklisted. Is there no better source for this? Blogs are ephemeral and not a great source even for trivia like this. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol declined.svg Declined, Myspace is not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This site seems to have been blocked. Can you please help me remove the block? I believe that nothing is wrong with this site. It is about Vivien Leigh and it is great source about the great actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksenia Malkovich (talkcontribs) 16:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This site seems blocked. please remove it . It is one of the top most visited website in india for indian music. This will help users read about on wikipedia.

--Robsingh (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I suggest this be declined; Robsingh appears to be the site owner, and created an article on the site (which was speedied). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Not done Stifle (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

NEFAC are a prominent anarchist organization but I cannot link to their page on Wikipedia. I do not understand this because it could not be spam or defamatory etc. Wikipedia bosses please explain why this link is banned. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Cross-wiki spam: [5]. It's not a reliable source as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What?!! reliable sources has nothing to do with it - it's the official website of the organization and the organization is notable. The spam was by one guy on an inappropriate article (antifascism) over a year ago. Banning it is way out of proportion. If someone started putting inappropriate (also "not a reliable source") links into articles, you wouldnt ban that would you. Silliness —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It is an appropriate (and recommended) external link on the article about the organization. That page currently links to the website using the IP address which is probably not ideal for us. Recommend whitelisting home page only (or possibly if people think it's less likely to get spammed) for this page only and maybe having it watched by AntiSpamBot. -- SiobhanHansa 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

If you scroll up a bit there is a second request for this site - does that indicate a better reason to possibly unblock it? (Personal interest irrelevant; I'm a half hippie and never heard of the organization, the site looks badly done but two people have said it really is offical site, it's in another language probably expalins why I haven't heard of it.)RayvnEQ (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this should be blacklisted, but it should, be dealt with by deblacklisting rather than whitelisting. Deferred MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it rather depends. If it is a polemical or biased site and has been spammed, then blacklisting is not unreasonable, and whitelisting the homepage (only) would be the normal way to handle the issue of links in the article itself. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 Stale at this stage; lister can repost if he still wants it added. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why a TV wiki is blocked. Nothing offensive I could see. --T smitts (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Some aggressive adding of the link: Special:Contributions/GDarau, it may have been blacklisted for that reason, maybe specific whitelisting of specific pages on the server is the way to go? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing else heard so closed as  Stale. --Herby talk thyme 10:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know why this was black-listed in the first place. is an interesting site, essential as reference for many articles on Nepalese politics. --Soman (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not appear blacklisted:
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
well it still gets caught in the spam filter. --Soman (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Can you give a a link to the page concerned if this is still happening. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Closed as  Stale, nothing more heard. --Herby talk thyme 10:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Toadie's Myspace Blog

Link is . The official announcement of the band releasing a new recording is big news for them and is the first place they officially announced it. This of course would help to update the toadies page on wikipedia, especially the section with information on the new album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eviladam (talkcontribs) 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this an official blog belonging to the band? If so, I'll whitelist it. Otherwise, we don't use blogs as references. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 15:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

NEFAC is one of the most prominent anarcho-communist organisations on the planet, and there should be a link in their article to their official website. On behalf of the Anarchism task force, Skomorokh 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate, see below. MER-C 09:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have also no idea why this was blacklisted. It has an enormous amount of chess related information, useful as a reference for many chess related articles. For instance the historical chess tournaments: , which can be used for many articles in Category:Chess competitions (such as Vienna 1882 chess tournament). Voorlandt (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

  • This page is for requesting that a particular page on a blacklisted site be permitted while the rest of the site is not. Which page do you want to permit? If you want to delist the entire site, please see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol declined.svg Declined in the absence of reply. Stifle (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no harm in allowing a link to the about page. This is used numerous times as a reference on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article and the nowiki'd link looks ridiculous on our part. Thanks. —Giggy 10:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • What's wrong with using reliable independent sources? Self-sourced articles often fail WP:NPOV. I think it would be hard to find a site which is less likely to be reliable as a source about anything, even itself. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • This is basically the same discussion at AN, but it isn't fair to call this a self sourced article. this is an article which, frankly, is scrupulously sourced detailing a notable subject and should be allowed to do so in the same fashion as any other article on a corporation, organization or website. The limitations imposed by WP:V are sufficient to ensure that information cited only to the subject not be used excessively. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • It's currently being used to cite the launch date, a basic description of itself (quoted in ref 3), and the fact that it's trying to copy The Devil's Dictionary. I'd agree that using this to cite other things would go against NPOV, but these particular facts are hardly controversial. —Giggy 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, if there is a problem with the POV in an article, this is the wrong way to fix it. Blacklisting the site doesn't prevent us from citing it. It just makes wikipedia look petty. We've had enough trouble building an article about ED, let's just collectively be the bigger person and treat it like just another site. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The site is blacklisted due to long-term abuse and that is unlikely to change (ED is of no conceivable use as a source for an encyclopaedia, after all). This is about whether one page should be whitelisted as a source for an article. I remain entirely unconvinced that the site is capable of being honest about even the most basic facts, for example I dispute absolutely their assertion that they are modelled on sites which elevate themselves above the simply childish, something ED has historically failed to do. I've checked ED articles on subjects with which I am familiar and they contain not just distortion but blatant falsehood, so like I say I would like to know if there are reliable independent sources for the same facts, because I think those would be better in respect of this particular site. I don't trust a word they say, and for good reason. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, but that has nothing to do with the spam blacklist. the site is already referenced in the article, per WP:SPS. All we are asking is for the links to not be blocked by the spam filter. This isn't about our personal feelings regarding the site's reliability, devotion to truth or maturity. Protonk (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with Protonk. Guy, while I certainly respect your opinion here (and in other areas) I think it might be good if another admin without the strong feelings on the subject that you may have takes a look at this. Would you object to asking a few other regulars (Herbythyme comes to mind) to take a squiz? —Giggy 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The opinion by Guy above this is still worded slightly antagonistically ("childish", etc.), indicating a personal dislike for the site. The About page for the site is not done "dramtically" like the other pages are; I just visited it (for the first time) and it really does do nothing other then tell about the site. If Wikipedia has an article abuot the site, it would make no sense whatsoever not to link to the site from the article. Since the home page is apparently not allowed to be linked to, this page would make a good alternative.RayvnEQ (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
  • To be totally fair to guy, I can 100% understand why he might not like the all. Protonk (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I have firmly shelved the fact that they reportedly assert that my recently deceased father was a paedophile, I was thinking more about the shit they published about Phaedriel. Fact is, they have sown beyond any possible doubt that they care more about "lulz" than about any pretence to accuracy, and I don't think that they are likely to be any more honest about themselves than they are about anything else. which is why I would suggest that we use only what can be verified from reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that an obviously satirical website posted satirical information about somebody you personally know is far from a reason to disallow it from being linked to for any reason, whatsoever, no matter how relevant. No website should be written about without including a link to the website, period. It just doesn't make sense.Rayvn (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • (arbitrary indent reset)
  • Just to point out ... I checked the article, and it appears that the about page has been listed as a ref sinse mid-May sometime. It's just listed as plain-text and not linked. If it's okay to have the ref in the article, then I agree it should be whitelisted - if it's not appropriate, then the ref should be removed from the article. It may be worthwhile to open the issue for broader comment at WP:ANI. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Or an article RfC (although they have a long history of meatpuppetry so that may not work well). Guy (Help!) 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Deferred WP:AN. I am uncomfortable adding this in the absence of discussion before a wider audience. This page is a bit of a dark alley as Wikipedia goes. If it is still desired to whitelist this site, please open an AN thread. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I just need it as a source for Image:1Lempira.jpg. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Would a non-live URL be sufficient, like the title of this section? MER-C 09:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Uh, I'm really dumb. Should've thought about that a long time ago. Therefore, I strike this request. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was doing some work to include external link to the ARCAD website when I got a notice stating that the link has triggered Wikipedia spam protection filter. As a result, the spam filter blocked the website. I would like the following URLs whitelisted as they provide useful information related to electric shock, arc flash hazard protection, short circuit analysis, conductor, motor and transformer resources:


I believe following articles would benefit from the addition of these links:


I would greatly appreciate if somebody could have a quick look on the above and unblock links. --Mykh (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Declined The reason this site was blacklisted in the first place was for canvassing. No, you still can't canvas it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • is somehow on the spam list for wikipedia. I don't know why it is there and I don't know or care if there is an article which could link to All I know is that is not a spam website and does not deserve to be listed in a spam list. Either name that section "sites we do not like" or take out of that spam list. ????
    This section is for proposing that a site that has been unblocked now be reblocked. Please use the correct section. Please also sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The above request to whitelist this site was granted; the site (which is user-edited and fails WP:RS) was used as a source for the peerless wisdom that when hosting a showing of all six Star Wars films back to back, it is advisable to provide toilet facilities and food. I am sure we must have a WP:NOSHITSHERLOCK guideline somewhere! Anyway, I removed the material sourced to the unreliable source, so the whitelist entry is no longer necessary. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

  • No objections here, just remove it. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuwie, and any other infrequently-spammed site with legitimate usuages

I was trying to add my Yuwie page as a way of contacting me (on user page), and I got the message back saying it is blacklisted. Many sites block this domain, and it is very annoying. Since MySpace (which I also added) was not blocked, Yuwie has no reason to be blocked. If necessary I think you can change the block to only include the referral link, which is Yuwie referral links are sometimes sent to e-mails and stuff for spammy reasons, but very infrequently. There are many legitimate usages, besides user pages, for example a link to a celebrity's page under external links, or as a reference because the blog page hosts maybe a list of links to reliable sites about a particular subject. Because of the nature of Yuwie and the fact that people want their blogs read as often as possible, and want as many people on their freindslist as possible, people often put things in their blogs such as YouTube videos (often referenceable, such as a news story or an example of a notable event) (YouTube videos don't always have a way to find the video on, and not all videos posted in Yuwie blogs actually come from YouTube), Copies of articles that are obviously written by say a newspaper or a professional (but without links in the blog, meaning the blog has to be linked), or personal opinions (example: Supporters of Barack Obama sometimes say that XXXXXXXXX [ref][endref]. I believe it is unfair (not only on this site, but on all websites) that Yuwie cannot be linked to for legitimate purposes just because a few people used to SPAM it sometimes 6 months ago (happens a lot less frequently now because people have realized it isn't good money anyway, especially those who would spam). If a user is putting their referral link or SPAMming with this site, the edit they are making probably has other reasons to be deleted anyway, and the user will probably be banned etc., making blocking the site semi-unnecessary if it can also be used legitimately. I see similar requests for Squidoo above and believe it also follows the model, though Squidoo has a lot more potential then Yuwie to be used abusively because it has many more user pages that would still be blocked if they were outside Squidoo. I am not sure if Squidoo has a specific URL either that can be blocked, as I said about Yuwie IMO it would be more prudent to block "".

Also, the phrase in the title "infrequently-spammed" is intended to mean, "SPAMmed, but infrequently," and is not intended to be sarcastic, or a similar word. To say something about sites that occassionally-but-not-usually-spammed in the title would ahve been too long, and to say "similar sites" would not have been descriptive or even universally interpreted the same way.

Please notify me of responses to this article in whatever way will send notifications to my e-mail address or website inbox.RayvnEQ (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Um, linking to that site to support that statement about Obama would violate WP:NOR, so that is not actually a legitimate use, as such. Guy (Help!) 21:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol declined.svg Declined as no legitimate reason for linking has been presented. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • UM, exactly how is linking to 647 people who have independently agree with a stated opinion original research, when the only thing being mentioned is the fact that the opinion exists, rather then the factuality of the opinion? Last time I checked, the fact that 637 people have an opinion about something is indeed proof that the opinion exists. Also, why would a "valid reason" to not block a page be needed in the first place when 5 other websites which are exactly the same as the one in question are unblocked? But even though "valid reasons" are not necessary in this case, three valid reasons ARE given, as well as an alternative link to block would which accomplish the same purpose as the current block.Rayvn (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If it's significant then there will be independent coverage. If there is no independent coverage, it is not significant. 647 people is just under two floors of my 44-storey building, not a big number without the indispensable context of independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

please remove from the black list to update stock footage section in wikipedia
I was editing the page on Stock footage and included Russian Stock Footage Library link, this people provide archival motion imagery, stock footage and research services from Russia for documentary producers who are willing to license video from state Russian archives, other Russian video libraries.
Please help me to unblock the web site Somehow it is blacklisted now. It deserves to be added to Wikipedia stock footage section here Thank you in advace

Hello , thanks you for your prompt reply link will contribute to Wikipedia stock footage page giving an information where to refer in Russia if someone is willing to find Russian professional video, Would you please help me to navigate where I can refer to, an administrator notice board or somewhere else?

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a prominent site on Malayalam cinema with numerous news reports. Please make sure the site is not blacklisted by mistake and I request you to unblock it--Anoopkn (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

*Symbol declined.svg Declined No reason or examples of where it would be used given. Ads and popups galore, in addition to one of the banners originating from an attack site (according to Firefox). OhNoitsJamie Talk 08:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
*The reason was that I wanted to add a point on a controversy surrounding a malayalam film, Twenty:20 (film). The news appears here: (Add http://). I couln't find any other major websites with the news as well.--Anoopkn (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The lack of a reliable source is not a great reason to use an unreliable one - rather the opposite, in fact. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the notification page should be a banner at the top of the edit page, or of a manner that when we hit the "back" button, our text is still there. It may have taken a long time to write the text, especially since we have to use a strange coding mechanism which takes more time to implement then most coding systems, or it may contain writing that we would not be able to duplicate if we had to type it a second time. Just because a site is blacklisted does not mean we have made a negative contribution worthy of deletion in we have tried to use (such as in the case I just mentioned for myself of my user page), and we should be able to edit and just remove or change the link, or save our text to a notepad file for later usage if we don't want to include the edit without the link.

When I used the "add new section" link which is not present on most pages (so, assumed it to be the right place), it put my listing all the way at the bottom instead of here where I think it is supposed to be.RayvnEQ (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Most decent browsers will conserve the text in the form when you hit the back button. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
So? There are many users who don't have a large choice of browsers, due to accessibility issues, or resource issues which prevent them from using "decent" browsers, due to old hardware or poorly supported operating systems. While I don't believe that this is proper forum for technical issues such as RayvnEQ's, your response, and more specifically, your edit summary ("use a decent browser") seem rather dismissive. -Seidenstud (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Opera runs on just about any hardware capable of rendering a Wikipedia page. It preserves text when you click back, and it's free (as in beer). I don't think it's a stretch to expect people to use a decent internet browser to edit Wikipedia. Orpheus (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
We're clearly getting off-topic here, but, for the record, Opera does not run on CLI-based shells, whose browsers can typically render wikipedia fine.. It is not a stretch to expect people on a free encyclopedia to not dismiss users with problems with "use a decent browser."-Seidenstud (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not that's the case, we're getting off-track here — you need to place your request at bugzilla. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
UM, I was most likely using FireFox, since I believe everything to do with Wikipedia was on the laptop I owned for like a week, and whether or not text is restored when you hit the back button has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.Rayvn (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, but you still need to use bugzilla to report your issue. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Official Pendulum MySpace blog
Contains irrefutable information about a disputed release date for use in the article Propane Nightmares which will help to resolve any further arguments regarding the release date.
Contains information about the (faulty) Australian version of In Silico which may be useful in the article at some point.
Information confirming the release date and formats of The Other Side which may be useful in supporting the article up until the release.

Several pages from this blog would be useful if whitelisted. I've listed them all separately to make it easier to read. Whitelisting any of these pages would be helpful, particularly the first page – Ikara talk → 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

After reading through the blog I have found other references that would be useful in several Pendulum articles, however I cannot list all the ones that will definitely get used right now. Ideally it would help to have all pages on the blog whitelisted, as well as the top level page for general reference, using an expression similar to:
I haven't seen this method used in the whitelist yet so it may not be approved of, but it should be noted that the expression will only match pages in the Pendulum blog, and assuming one of them is allowed, there should be no problem with the others. In any case the above entries would still be very useful, and there should be no problem with them. I could really use the above three, so a speedy reply would be very helpful. Thanks – Ikara talk → 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Another related request;, which is Rob Swire's official MySpace blog (the band's blog wasn't used before mid-2007) where he states that the band does/did not endorse JungleSound Gold – a CD released boasting "Mixed by Pendulum" on the cover. This is stated in Pendulum discography and should most certainly be supported with a reference, but this is the only one I have found so far. As before the ideal would be:
Any chance of a reply soon? Thanks again – Ikara talk → 17:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This site deserves to be unblocked because its commonly accepted to link to the website of the company that manufactures a product that is notable, as the Volcano Vaporizer is. While I understand not wanting to unleash the floodgates of every head shop on the internet wanting to spam the Bong or Cannabis article, an exception should be made for the actual manufacturer of the product. SiberioS (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Recently declined here. --Herby talk thyme 10:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it technically feasible to unblock for one specific page?SiberioS (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
And may I also point out its a bit absurd to block a site on the presumption of its abuse by anonymous IP addresses in spamming, or its potential for abuse, even though it DOES have a legitimate purpose on a specific page. It would be like presuming that linking to Apple or Microsoft's websites are dangerous because they may be used to bolster or spam vast numbers of articles in order to drum sales or support. We should err on the side of allowing it. SiberioS (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
It isn't just presumed abuse - the site was abused. The IP who made the initial request for whitelisting also spammed it to a bunch of other articles on en.Wiki and others. See COIBot's report on the additions of the link before it was added to the meta blacklist. -- SiobhanHansa 00:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This really needs to get whitelisted! It's a totally legitimate site, especially for the Volcano Vaporizer article --Holscher (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Er.... no. Maybe the url for the home page, for use solely in that one article. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The website is the official site for Storz & Bickel GmbH and the Volcano Vaporizer. The website is not an exception to Wikipedia standards. In fact, it is the most germane and relevant external source for information not contained within Wikipedia. The standards suggested in WP:ELYES support inclusion.
An analysis of the COIBot's spam report indicates that multiple languages, less so multiple articles, initiated the blacklisting. Within a language group, the majority of the articles in question could be considered appropriate. Complicating the matter, the Meta-Wiki Spam Blacklist names the site because of the polylingual appearances. The justification for blacklisting is based on one or two articles per language. The interpretation that this amounts to widespread, inappropriate "spamming" is not accurate.
Since the time when the site was blacklisted, the article for Volcano Vaporizer has been well edited, with an emphasis on consensus. Despite the strong viewpoints expressed by multiple editors, there has been continued, constructive progress. The dismissive attitude toward whitelisting the website does not fit well with the current standing of the article.
The independent editors who have contributed the majority of the content for the article support listing the official website as an external link within the article Volcano Vaporizer.RidingLessons (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

  • As noted above, yuo might be able to get the home page (alone) whitelisted, but the site itself is unlikely to be allowed. Guy (Help!) 10:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Please confirm whether whitelisting of the home page only will be acceptable. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration. Clearly, the only articles suitable to be linked to the official website are Storz & Bickel GmbH and Volcano Vaporizer, in each respective language. I support whitelisting the home page There is no doubt that this website was abused before, so some limitations are in order.RidingLessons (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not the home page, that's the entire domain. What's the home page? Guy (Help!) 11:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The general domain currently forwards directly to a Vaporizer promotional page - itdoesn't look like it's necessarily stable as the domain's home page. Suggest the comapny's about page - - for the storz-bickel article and for the Volcano Vaporizer article. The second link in particular is prone to the same abuse the site in general has been involved in so suggest it gets watched closely - perhaps adding to one of the bot revert lists once it's on the appropriate page. -- SiobhanHansa 12:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose to whitelist the following:
I suck at regexen though so can someone else confirm these are correct? Stifle (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I support whitelisting the entire domain in all meta and media wiki applications. That said, for Volcano Vaporizer and for Storz & Bickel are suitable. Let's make it happen.RidingLessons (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Would someone with awesome skills please assist with this matter? The issue has been ruled on Mediawiki Meta here and a consensus reached. Thanks, RidingLessons (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

2) Vuze
3) Umm, direct link to the webpage of the application that the article is written about? D'uh. Also:
And boy is it dumb to have a blacklist which negates my careful editting without warning. Blacklists are stupid, throw rocks at them.
~ender 2008-12-26 11:41:PM MST

  • Spammers are even more stupid. Click Back in your browser and remove the link, that will rescue the text (if it's not too late). Please specify the home page link (not the domain) as whitelisting the root would allow resumption of spamming of any page within the site. Guy (Help!) 17:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)