MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

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

Archives (current)→

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    The Spam-whitelist page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist and the local spam-blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (web pages to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to reblock), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

    Please enter your requests at the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and not at the very bottom of the page. Sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

    Also in your request, please include the following:

    1. The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
    2. The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
    3. An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
    4. If the site you're requesting is listed at /Common requests, please include confirmation that you have read the reason why requests regarding the site are commonly denied and that you still desire to proceed with your request

    Important: You must provide a full link to the specific web page you want to be whitelisted (leave out the http:// from the front; otherwise you will not be able to save your edit to this page). Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar with nothing after the / character) are likely to be denied. If you wish to have a site fully unblocked please visit the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

    Note: Do not request links to be whitelisted where you can reasonably suspect that the material you want to link to is in violation of copyright (see WP:LINKVIO). Such requests will likely be summarily rejected.

    There is no automated notification system in place for the results of requests, and you will not be notified when your request has a response. You should therefore add this page to your personal watch list, to your notifications through the subscribe feature, or check back here every few days to see if there is any progress on it; in particular, you should check whether administrators have raised any additional queries or expressed any concerns about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in the request being denied.

    Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|1220442879#section_name}}

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

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

    Indicators
    Request completed:
     Done {{Done}}
     Stale {{StaleIP}}
     Request withdrawn {{withdrawn}}
    Request declined:
    no Declined {{Declined}}
     Not done {{Notdone}}
    Information:
     Additional information needed {{MoreInfo}}
    information Note: {{TakeNote}}


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

    www.verywellhealth.com[edit]

    1. This article on myolysis is approachably written, but more importantly for a medical source, not making any extraordinary claims, nor at odds with other reliable sources - seemingly passing WP:MEDRS for at least limited use.
    2. It would benefit our article on Myolysis

    PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this really a WP:MEDRS? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a WP:MEDPOP, but it's an ok website. It has lots of nice articles. - Manifestation (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, yes - it seems usable for uncontroversial information, in accordance with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources. I provided more detail on why I think it's usable at this RSN thread. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More to the point... this domain was blacklisted in the first place for spam purposes, not for reliability issues. Shouldn't all that's needed for a whitelist request be to show it's not being used as spam? Have I not provided enough proof of reliability? Why is reliability being (apparently) rigorously scrutinized here, and not at WP:RSN? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything that even approaches WP:MEDRS is scrutinized rigorously everywhere on Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is VeryWell on the spam-blacklist when it has never been spammed? - Manifestation (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, but I've shown that this site may be used explicitly per the written guidance in WP:MEDRS. How much longer do I have to wait for someone to approve this? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown @Pppery since you two appear to be the only ones patrolling this page, could one of you review this request more thoroughly, and provide an answer? It's frustrating to wait this long in a queue with no path forward. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A lengthy discussion of Verywell occurred in 2020. The thread was opened by User:Beetstra in hopes of getting review of a request by User:Manifestation. It is worth noting that only a link to one single Verywell article is proposed here for whitelisting: www.verywellhealth.com/myolysis-5189197. A ping to User:Beetstra is appropriate. He has done a lot of work on spam so he might be able to offer advice about any spam issues that would apply to this link. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For context, that one link was whitelisted by the late Spinningspark, during a time when there were no active admins monitoring requests on this page at all, so doesn't indicate anything other than his specific views. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The thread was opened by User:Beetstra in hopes of getting review of a request by User:Manifestation."
    No, that thread was opened by Beetstra to harass me into silence. No one came to my defense at the time. Verywell remains banned to this day, for no good reason. However, on a more positive note, Beetstra did whitelist one url from Verywell Mind. So maybe that site isn't so bad after all, right?
    A second url, from Verywell Health, was added by the late Spinningspark, as Pppery already pointed out. - Manifestation (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That AN thread went a bit off the rails. It started with Beetstra pointing out a personal attack from Manifestation, and only happened to meander its way toward discussing verywell's usability. What I did see, though, were 2 users who provided specific use cases for verywell that were shut down by the blacklisting. Whitelisting wasn't a preferred option for either of them - SandyGeorgia said they hardly knew about whitelisting at all, and wbm outright calling the whitelist one of the most unpleasant aspects of WP. Add me to that group of editors less than impressed with the whitelist process, for how little attention my request has gotten (before asking at AN).
    Putting that aside, though, I'd like to process this one whitelist request before diving into a whole 'nother discussion about verywell as a whole. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that three verywell* links were added to the Spam blacklist here in December 2018 by User:JzG. (verywellhealth.com, verywellmind.com and verywellfamily.com). The request was posted at this page. Replying to User:Manifestation: if you believe that User:Beetstra has been harassing you you should make a complaint in the appropriate forum. Beetstra introduces his comments in that thread with "Time for some independent review", which is why I quoted him as posting for review. The 2020 thread does not show you at your best, with your references to 'lying' and so forth. A equally unpleasant exchange occurs in this thread from May 2020. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, those two had a couple of unpleasant exchanges 4 years ago. But I'm hoping we can discuss my request on its owm merit, without any more unpleasantness. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What merits would those be? These are unreliable sources that were spammed. They have no evident value to this project. The fact of an unreliable source carrying an article that is not packed with fringe claims does not magically transform it into a reliable source, and the sourcing standard for medical content (WP:MEDRS) is substantially higher than for routine content. If the content you want to include is not published in a MEDRS source then it doesn't get included. If it is in a MEDRS source then use that. It seems pretty simple to me. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On what basis have you decided verywell is broadly an unreliable source? There have been very few previous discussions about verywell anywhere on WP, and the RSP entry that technically covers verywell is more about their parent company. Even still, that RSP entry lists that family of sources as "no consensus" on reliability, and says Editors find the quality of articles published by About.com to be inconsistent. That sure sounds to me like some articles are high-quality, others are not, and deciding if one counts as an WP:RS is subject to common sense.
    More to the point, verywell's article on myolysis seems usable for uncontroversial information, explicitly in accordance with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources. And other discussions, which EdJohnston linked to, have shown that I'm not the only editor who judges some of their articles to be reliable and worth citation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG since you've replied to others below, would you care to engage with or rebut any my points here? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did. I disagree with you. Not much more to say, really. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's plenty more you could say. You could provide any examples at all of articles of theirs you're characterizing as "advertorial" or "written by AI." You could clarify why you consider the main purpose of verywell to be selling products as opposed to simply being popular press, when other RS don't get that treatment. You could clarify which part of the WP:MEDRS standard you believe this source fails, considering I've pointed out where in that guideline it's allowed. But of course, you don't have to answer to any of that, and can bow out as you like. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Collapsing personal attacks
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    "The 2020 thread does not show you at your best"
    How DARE you?!?! How can you have the audacity to write something like that?!?! Did you actually READ the threads? Did you SEE the stupidity? Not just by Beetstra, but by others too!
    Look, let me just give you ONE example, and you tell me what you think, ok? In this thread, on 5 May 2020 09:38, Beetstra wrote this:
    I still believe it [Verywell] was justly banned, it was abused by multiple editors in a case relating to copyvio material. It was a just way of stopping that abuse.
    Yes, he wrote that. Beetstra, a decorated admin and prolific spam-fighter with years of experience, believes that blacklisting a website will somehow prevent people from copy-pasting text from that website into Wikipedia. And he repeated this claim the next day, in the same thread.
    Don't you think this is an immediate red flag? Doesn't this make it look like that something funny is going on? And this is just *one* example. His entire defense was nonsensical. Yet, for some reason, nobody interfered. - Manifestation (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Calling other editors "stupid" is against our policies. This is not the way to address a dispute with another editor. You need to behave yourself, Manifestation. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swatjester: Why is Verywell banned? Why isn't it unbanned? - Manifestation (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it was spammed and is unreliable. Right now it has a load of advertorial that appears to have been written by AI, promoting expensive and generally useless products. The purpose of the site is sales, not information. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that there is no good rationale for removing "verywell" sites from the blacklist for reasons already enumerated; that is, it's largely promotional, and most of the content does not meet WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you provide links to any verywellhealth sites where they're promoting products? Or ones written by AI? Their article on myolysis is neither of those, and is the purpose of my whitelist request.
    And the apparent purpose of Verywellhealth is to provide health and wellness information by health professionals. It's pretty apparent their main purpose is to be a consumer-friendly medical information website. They may leverage their popularity to recommend products and make commissions on sales - but other RS do that too, and we don't deprecate the entire site because of it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG and OhNoitsJamie: Are we seeing the same website? Are we living in the same universe? What promotions?? Which products?? Which AI-content?? I have the home page of Verywell Health in front of me right now. Here are the first five articles on the front page as of 14:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC):[reply]
    • How Does Cannabis Affect a Workout?
      By Stephanie Brown | Published on April 16, 2024
      Fact checked by Nick Blackmer
    • 4 Health Benefits of Walking in the Rain, According to Experts
      By Alyssa Hui | Updated on April 19, 2024
      Fact checked by Nick Blackmer
    • These Are the 8 Best Fruit and Veggie Skins to Eat
      By Lauren Manaker MS, RDN, LD | Updated on April 19, 2024
      Fact checked by Nick Blackmer
    • COVID by the Numbers: Spring 2024
      By Team Verywell Health | Updated on April 19, 2024
      Fact checked by Marley Hall
    • Flu By the Numbers: April 19, 2024
      By Team Verywell Health | Updated on April 19, 2024
      Fact checked by Angela Underwood
    As can already be deduced from the titles, this is a popular press website. In terms of quality, it is similar to such sites as Psychology Today, ScienceDaily, Men's Health, Woman's Day, etc. These offer simplistic, mass-produced articles written in a simplistic language, intended for the general masses. In other words, not a reason to ban the site. - Manifestation (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I don't think that was the initial reason. The request was made by Jytdog a few days before retiring | being blocked. In Jytdog's contribution history for the day or so before requesting I see several edit summaries saying "spam" or "spammy" where Jytdog removed cites of verywell*. Apparently some editors (some of whom were soon blocked) were adding cites recently. But no evidence was provided that the site is spam, i.e. what we're seeing is: edits are spam by Jytdog's definition, therefore the non-spam site is blacklisted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you!! Finally someone who actually looks at the evidence. 😊
    I'm not even sure that Dulanji Perera (5 edits) and Dulanji P (1 edit) are sockpuppets of Mservi68 (2 edits). Their edits don't really resemble each other, and their IP address is a shared IP from Lanka Education and Research Network. However, based on this tiny little case, with a whopping three sock accounts, three Verywell websites were banned, by User:JzG. This was unjustifiable, but JzG and Beetstra do not care, because they don't like the Verywell sites. - Manifestation (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, Peter has an idiosyncratic attitude to source reliability, based on many past discussions. You'd be better off asking at WP:RSN. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Classic clickbait. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question for User:Pppery: is there anything on this proposed-whitelisted page that is unique? Or is it just a convenient source that could reasonably be replaced by other non-blacklisted sources? DMacks (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't really matter if a source is unique in judging if it's worth using. Particularly medical sources - WP:MEDPOP says that popular press "sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English", and to "use common sense" to evaluate the quality of each individual article from sources like this. That guideline also recommends: "One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source." So there is a legitimate use case for citing sources like verywell in tandem with more scientific, scholarly sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the apparent reluctance of others to whitelist this page, I had hoped to elicit an alternate way forward: either a new and strong argument for why this page should be whitelisted or alternatives that could be used. Taking a seeming argumentative stance with me, who came here by your ow request on another noticeboard, is not helpful. I'm out. DMacks (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Argumentative? You provided a pathway by which my whitelist request could be declined, and I provided relevant information from our policies in support. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose PhotogenicScientist and Manifestation are trying very hard for this page without making a case for why it has to be this page and none else. If it's only on one site it probably doesn't fit the spirit of MEDRS. Recommend finding a non problematic source. Star Mississippi 01:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Please, see my comment above re: WP:MEDPOP. There's nothing wrong with citing popular press like this, even if the information could be gleaned elsewhere. I'm not aware of any policy that says a source requested for whitelisting must be the only source able to be cited for specific information. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure why you're pushing so hard for this page to be whitelisted when by your admission, the info could come from elsewhere. The source is problematic per multiple established editors. Using a different one would be the best and most viable outcome here. Star Mississippi 13:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm pushing for it to be used in the article because it is a plain-English summary of a medical procedure that is approachably written, and falls afoul of neither WP:RS nor WP:MEDRS. Many "established editors" have expressed concerns, but I feel nobody has actually engaged with my arguments to policy, or any of my responses. And if there is some rule that sources cannot be whitelisted if the information can come from elsewhere, nobody has pointed me to it - it seems to be just an unwritten (and imo detrimental) aspect of this whitelist process.
      This site is caught in a catch-22 between reliability and spam right now. It was deemed spam long ago, on evidence that wasn't clear (by Beetstra's admission). Then its reliability took a hit "due to persistent abuse," that only cited this one spam blacklisting. Now, when you try to discuss its reliability, you get sent to the spam list to get it whitelisted. And if you go to the spam whitelist, everyone goes back to questioning its reliability. It's been a very frustrating 3 weeks trying to work through this.
      I ask of you - please take a look at the article on myolysis. I can't link it, but the url is at the top of this request. Look it over, and see for yourself if you would consider it a reliable source. If you don't think it's reliable, I would really like to know why, so I can better calibrate on what this site expects in terms of reliability - because I've read RS and MEDRS six ways to sunday, and I don't see any issues with the source. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I'm coming here without an opinion either way, and I've done ask you asked, and read the entire article you linked at the top of this section.
      Is it reliable? Maybe. Has it been discussed at WP:RSN?
      Assuming it's reliable, I am having a hard time figuring out what information that article presents that cannot easily be found in other sources. The Wikipedia article on myolysis already presents (using your own words) "a plain-English summary of a medical procedure that is approachably written". What value would this pop-medical article add? I'm not seeing it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you. I opened this discussion on RSN a while back. Before that, there had been very little discussion of verywellhealth. I summarized what I could glean from all past discussions in that RSN post.
      Generally, I agree with you that this article is neither the best nor the only source where information on myolysis can come from. But in my evaluation, it seems like a fine source to use. I appear to be the only one who cares about our article on myolysis here - I already expanded it quite a bit, from rather unhelpful dab page to at least a short article. And I did so largely by citing what other sources I could find. But this article would be useful to fill in content gaps that aren't easily summarizable from other sources - such as a short sentence describing the usage of radiofrequency ablation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I ask of you - please take a look at the article on myolysis. I can't link it, but the url is at the top of this request. Look it over, and see for yourself if you would consider it a reliable source.
      I did, I came here from WP:AN as an utterly uninvolved admin as I don't think you/Manifest/Beestra and I have had anything but incidental interaction. Others have the standard admin interactions. While this may fit the letter of MEDPOP, I do not think this fits the spirit of what we need in medical articles. There must be better out there. I don't understand the two year (if I'm reading this right) push for this page when time, energy could be spent finding a better source. But we'll agree to disagree and while I oppose it, someone else may feel different. My read here though is there is a fairly strong consensus against it. Star Mississippi 01:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There must be better out there. Therein lies the rub. Are you volunteering to find a better source yourself? Because I, in the course of putting in work on this article that nobody else seems to care about, have found a reliable-looking source that I think would improve the article. It is policy-compliant, and from reading the rules of the blacklist and whitelisting, I don't see any reason for it to be rejected. Maybe I could find a better source, and maybe I couldn't - but why is it for you to assign me to that task? Why let perfect be the enemy of "good enough?" If there's no solid reason to bar the use of this source except that "vibes are off," that just seems to me to be a terribly unfair outcome.
      And for what it's worth, I've not spent 2 years pushing for this - it's been 3 weeks. And the only reason I've spent that long on it is because I see some value in the source, and I'm attempting to follow the proper protocol to cite it. It was simply an open tab during my research phase for that article - I saw value in it before I knew the whole domain was blacklisted, and I still see some value in it now. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    brautiganlibrary.xyz[edit]

    1. This is the new URL home for the Brautigan Library (referenced in Clark_County_Historical_Museum where I (Richard_Holeton) have several publications referenced in the article Richard_Holeton. The old URL is no good and I was trying to update the URLs. So right now it mainly benefits my page at Richard_Holeton but likely will benefit others in the future that reference the Brautigan Digital Library which has moved to this domain for all its content. Without these URL updates, someone would need to edit the article to remove the dead references, which would lower the quality of the article.
    2. I see the ".xyz" is generally blacklisted. All I know is that the curator of the Brautigan Library is legitimately using this URL for a large and important online set of literary resources for scholars and authors.
    3. Thank you much for looking at this.

    --Richard Holeton (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is clearly not WP:RS and is promotional. Likely, the dead links just need removing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for looking at this. I guess you could say my request is "promotional" insofar as I'm the subject of the page and have an interest in it being factually correct and not contain dead links. But really it's just a correction of the dead URLs that someone else has put in the article as links to publications. The literary resources available at brautiganlibrary.xyz vastly exceed a couple of things of mine so represent a large public good. Richard Holeton (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also I see that many other ".xyz" subdomains have been whitelisted. Richard Holeton (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Used promotionally or not, the website includes a manuscript catalogue. As these are unicates housed only in that institution, it is a reliable source for statements made about those manuscripts and likely the only source of information on most of them. I don't see any harm in whitelisting the website. And the only reason it was blacklisted is because of its domain, so there is no justification for excluding this domain from a Wikipedia article, especially as regards its catalogues. Ivan (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Holeton: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Reliability issues are to be handled differently, and as far as I can see now Richard is pretty well within the limits of WP:COI, and I would not call this request therefore promotional or the links promotional/spammy. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Beetstra, and literary scholars and enthusiasts thank you. Richard Brautigan's "Library of Unpublished Works" (as described in the Wikipedia article) now resides at the Clark County Historical Museum, which is the home of the Brautigan Library and the Brautigan Digital Library which lives at brautiganlibrary.xyz/ . Hopefully someone will write an article on the Brautigan Library and its history (maybe I will do it in my "copious free time"!). Richard Holeton (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    kickstarter.com[edit]

    Requesting an override for this URL on the Hyper Light Drifter article. The post at this URL is from the creator of this video game and was being used as a primary source, which is acceptable per WP:ABOUTSELF. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I suggest you advise the creator to say the same on their website, not its fundraising page. Linking to fundraisers because they are the only place that describes a thing, is a truly terrible idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with you if the fundraiser were still active, but I don't see the harm in linking to concluded fundraisers, and there are currently seven kickstarters that have been added to the whitelist by admins other than me. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    northerntransmissions.com[edit]

    Seeking a whitelist for the specific link on a blacklisted website relating to an interview with a musician to support the article Sun Coming Down. Northern Transmissions is a fairly active Canadian music website that features news and primary interview sources with independent bands. Irrespective of whether it is mainstream or editorially robust, the interviews are considerable in volume and as primary sources have value. It seems to have been blacklisted historically relating to SEO spam ([1]) but this is now over a decade ago and the site itself is obviously not posing any threat to this site or for users to visit. Several editors have sought the blacklist to be reversed to no response on the blacklist talk page ([2][3][4]) and has been suggested as a RS by other users ([5]) so I am not really seeing a reason to keep it blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrxces (talk • contribs) 08:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've plus Added the specific link to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Any discussions about de-blacklisting the entire site need to happen over there, not here. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    www.brautiganarchives.xyz[edit]

    1. The most used website for author Richard Brautigan studies has moved to this URL (for reasons only known to the maintainer). It previously was at www.brautigan.net and was accessed hundreds of times a month. While you may not like the .xyz domain in general, this particular website (containing many hyperlinked pages) is unique in its scope and usefulness and I would like to replace the Wikipedia links to the now inactive www.brautigan.net.

    R k nelson (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from Whitelist (web pages or link patterns to re-block)[edit]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=1220442879"