MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/01

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

Approved Requests

Request to whitelist single page ingles-markets.com for article Ingles

Ingles is article for grocery store, ingles-markets.com is their official website. I don't know why it was blacklisted, but at the very least, the link should be in the article. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I've whitelisted the main page, http://www.ingles-markets.com/index.php for use in the Ingles article..  Done. Be sure to use the link exactly as presented, variations of that format will not work. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist a single page from Redtube.com

I'm posting this here following a suggestion here. There's been an article about Redtube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a few weeks, but I notice the site itself is blacklisted. As the article contains independent references which verify a certain degree of notability, I'm wondering whether it might be useful to be able to include a link to the site's main page. Having said that, I have heard of problems involving Redtube in the past, one being that clicking on some of the links can result in the user receiving unwanted pop up windows requesting bill payments, which are locked for a certain amount of time. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What's the URL of the main page? Stifle (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
http://www.redtube.com/ TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I need an index.htm or about.htm page, or similar. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure how to get that. Perhaps someone else can help? TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried but I can't get any index page, the age checking thing gets in the middle. I suggest using "\bwww\.redtube\.com\b". --Enric Naval (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
That won't do, need a specific landing page. I've been working on this also (ran out of variables), best I can come up with are http://www.redtube.com/?page=1 and http://www.redtube.com/?avID=8&avEnter=1. I'm opting to not use the "enter" code version, however the age check may be skipped in either case.
I've whitelisted http://www.redtube.com/?page=1 . Be sure to use the link exactly as presented, variations of that format will not work. Added to article  Done--Hu12 (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist a single page of kitchen-gadgets.suite101.com

I'd suggest that the following page, which has a useful explanation of the different types of Instant hot water dispenser, be whitelisted. I suggested that the site be whitelisted, but was told that it is in general an undesirable site (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#kitchen-gadgets.suite101.com) and have no objection to that. The page: http://kitchen-gadgets.suite101.com/article.cfm/home_electric_instant_hot_water_dispensers. See previous discussion linked above for more details and opinions. I word this as a suggestion rather than a request as I think it will be helpful to the article; I don't personally care. Pol098 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I am minded to permit this request and will whitelist the link in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 Approved Stifle (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

www.plasticsurgery.org

This is the main website that represents greater than 95% of all board certified plastic surgeons in the United States. I noticed it was blacklisted when I tried to add an external link to the wiki page "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Plastic_Surgeons" that is written about the society. I do not know why it was blacklisted (either "competitors" are attempting to block it, or an over-zelous marketing department irritated Wiki), but it seems that at least an external link should be present on this page. Other significant medical societies have such external links from wiki. --DrMBogdan (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of previous abuses and spam I'm reluctent to whitelist the entire domain. However because this is the official site of American Society of Plastic Surgeons article and the the article lacks the official link... I've whitelisted the main page, http://www.plasticsurgery.org/x5.xml for use in that article only.  Done. Be sure to use the link exactly as presented, variations of that format will not work. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --DrMBogdan (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist page www.provenmodels.com/39/technology-typology/woodward

To link from Joan Woodward. The article not only offers background information on this pioneer woman from academic research, but also includes an interesting appraisal of the her research contributions and findings. The article also includes references to three published items. lxs (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to approve this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 Done Stifle (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Denied Requests

Request to whitelist page freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551512/posts

This page has a biography of the Iranian student activist Behrouz Javid Tehrani. Based on comparisons with news articles, the page is accurate, and it is useful because it provides a more complete biography of Tehrani than any other page I saw so far. It looks like the freerepublic.com domain in general has strange/inaccurate information, but this page looks good to me--would it be possible to whitelist it? CordeliaNaismith (talk)

This appears to be a reasonable request and I will whitelist the page in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Copyvio of [1]. Hipocrite (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 Denied per WP:ELNEVER item 1. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist singe page from ehow

I would like to white list the single page http://www (dot) ehow (dot) com/how_5483336_start-wakesurfing.html for the wakesurfing article. Many of the links on that page are purely spam (ex. midwest wakesurf, which is a site that sells boards and has no information) and I believe this article has good information that goes more in depth than a wikipedia article would. I would use it as a reference for a section other than an external link. All of its information has been checked out by references in that site. Assed206 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

eHow.com links
  • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
no Declined.
Additionaly
...it appears that the author of the article your requesting, notes his home page is "go-college.webs.com" (Adsense pub-0189838191925575). , which you've added to wikipedia twice[2][3] ( as did IP 74.138.50.226 (talk · contribs)). Its quite unusual to find users adding or requesting multiple sites related to a particular user. Other questionable edits involve this suggestion, to a site with no forum members or posts. then actualy adding it to another article. There appears to be a pattern of Source soliciting a site you've "found" then adding it over multiple articles[4][5][6][7][8][9], as with tech2classroom.com (Adsense pub-0189838191925575). You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote these sites right? --Hu12 (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I am here to improve wikipedia, and have no connections to IP address 74.138.50.226 (talk · contribs). The World War I page with the tech2classroom.com subdomain was unblocked for me to have that site on there, as it is a historical reference. I would like to request that it gets reposted, as it is a good site. While I will admit some of the sites do have the same publisher, they are all refernece only. I wont dispute the revoking of the wowcrossroads site or ehow, but the other two are very informational. From here on I will try to stay only on posting text, not links. Thank you.


Request to whitelist two pages from xvideos

A wikipedia member has been engaged in an editing war for weeks now on the page for Cytherea. The issue is whether Cytherea "squirts" or does "female ejaculation." The discussion page has concluded "squirting" is appropriate, as "female ejaculation" is a controversial and unsourced claim of a live person. To further verify the assertion "squirting" the following two pages should be unblocked: (1) www.xvideos.com/video17419/cytherea_squirting_goddess . This short video clearly shows what she does--no further disagreement will be possible. It further disproves the claim that it is "female ejaculation," as it does not conform to that activity as described by the wikipedia page on the subject (volume is the problem). Note also that this clip does not constitute an "unreliable source," as it is the video itself that is the source, not commentary about it. (2) www.xvideos.com/?k=cytherea . This is a search page for Cytherea from the same website. It shows multiple listings for videos of "Cytherea squirting" and none of her "female ejaculation." In the interest of accuracy and thoroughness, in this case these pages should be allowed. 98.111.156.115 (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems there is a long term edit war occuring on Cytherea (person) with IP's closely related to yours.
98.111.156.115 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
98.111.173.30 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
98.111.157.9 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
98.111.176.215 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Considering the history of xvideos.com and the edit war occuring, its best to mark this as  Not done until clearer heads prevail. Both appear to fail our linking guidelines --Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist news column

I am aware that examiner.com is blacklisted, but I am a writer with Examiner and solely write news articles on Alexander Skarsgard. I think it would beneficial because visitors can view the latest news on him. My link I am requesting to be whitelisted:

(I left out the http://www.) examiner.com/x-29830-Alexander-Skarsgard-Examiner

To be used on page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Skarsg%C3%A5rd

99.144.217.245 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are more concerned about driving traffic to your page and making yourself some money.  Denied Stifle (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be rude about it, a simple yes or no would have been acceptable. Of course I am trying to generate traffic, wouldn't you? Thanks anyway. 99.144.217.245 (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist two pages of Associated Content website

Respectful request to use two blacklisted pages as reference for Jimi Hendrix article. It appears to be a well sourced, and coherent article:

Page 1 www.associatedcontent.com/article/213540/judgment_paid_in_hendrix_litigation.html?cat=17

Page 2 www.associatedcontent.com/article/213540/judgment_paid_in_hendrix_litigation_pg2.html?cat=17

--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Associatedcontent.com contains self-published articles and is not considered a reliable source. For controversial information like this, I would not be happy with AC as a source. Therefore, I am inclined to deny this request but will leave it open for a week or so in case another admin comes in with a differing opinion. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand. Thanks. And nice job.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to make sure I'm following WP guidelines, if no other administrator approves the content, that means I should remove even the basic unlinked URL. Is that right?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
There should not be any links to blacklisted sites except those that have been whitelisted. http://www.associatedcontent.com/index.html has, for example, been whitelisted. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 Not done Stifle (talk) 10:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist a page of Amazon.com

I wish to whitelist www.amazon.com/dp/B000AMWIVM/ref=nosim/?tag=dvdverdict2-20 because it is the only available site that includes the special features of the Saw: Uncut Edition DVD, which one of the special features (Full Disclosure Report) is what I am writing on for the List of Saw media article. Without this source, it could be deemed original research. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Denied, affiliate link. Please link to a normal version of the page without an affiliate link ([10] would do). Stifle (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist a single page of 4shared.com

Please could www.4shared.com/file/171301460/57ac6f/LeaguePosition.html be whitelisted. I am posting the link on User talk:BigDom in response to this question on my user talk page. The file being linked to is an Excel spreadsheet that exports a gif file of a chart showing soccer team league progress, similar to the one used at Bristol Rovers F.C. season 2006–07#League progress, and would be useful in illustrating similar articles in the same manner. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

no Declined, not necessary for use in an article. Just post the link exactly as you did there on the user's talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

lulu.com

Hello I want to have www.lulu.com, which is a book site to be removed from the forbidden list because I need to reference that for notability for a wikipedia page I am doing on Luis Durani and it wil ladd credence to his personality and needed for his proof that he wrote teh book.

This section is to request pages be blocked. Please file your request in the correct section. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

--Associatedcontent should be added to the white list because it is a great reference website, including many topics which aren't readily available anywhere else.

Associatedcontent.com:
  • Exercises no editorial control over articles
  • Articles are essentially self-published (see WP:RS)
  • Offers authors monetary incentives to increase pageviews
 Denied Stifle (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

www.deathcamps.org

The site is linked in many articles.Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC) www.deathcamps.org/euthanasia/obrawalde_de.html Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC) There was a dispute between the mentioned site and www.death-camps.org which probably doesn't exist any more.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugly mess it is;
More input by the other admins is needed before anything is done here.--Hu12 (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Several articles quote the site both directly (Gerstein Report) or pretending they don't (Hermann Höfle, Wikipeta!). The same for German Wikipedia. Either the site is totally wrong so all links should be replaced or it's O.K. . Now it's at the same time wrong and O.K.. Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
What exactly do you want done? Do you want the site removed from the blacklist entirely (in which case you're at the wrong page) or do you want one or a few links permitted (in which case please specify the exact URIs)? Stifle (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist page ezinearticles.com/?Operation-Highjump---Longhaul-Nazi-UFOs-in-Antarctica&id=2114562

External link from Operation Highjump The page contains a historical interest article on operation highjump that compliments the wiki article. The rest of the website it is hosted on also publishes a lot of interesting content on other topics as well which may benefit other articles, not sure why domain is blocked. But can this page be white listed. --211.27.0.83 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Nathan

Doesn't appear to be a reliable source. I am minded to decline this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason to approve it instead. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
no Declined per above--Hu12 (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist examiner.com page(s) for article Chris Daly


I'm trying to revert this edit [11], which is both malformed, preventing subsequent text from displaying properly, and because it is a BLP violation, presenting only one side of a disputed incident and inaccurately reflecting its cited source. The existing article includes multiple links to examiner.com pages regarding the article subject, some or all of which may be legitimately cited as properly identified commentary. I'd just like to see the BLP violation/defective edit removed, but can't do so myself without extensively revising the remainder of the article on any matters involving the questionable site (which would be better done by someone with more knowledge of the article subject, if it's needed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com:
  • Content has no editorial oversight, articles are essentially self-published (see WP:RS)
  • Offers financial incentives for authors to increase pageviews
no Declined Stifle (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is a mistake- the article is NOT from examiner.com. It is from sfgate.com, the offical website for the San Francisco Chronicle. examiner.com and sfgate.com are two entirely separate websites.KermitClown (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

But sfgate.com isn't blocked. Stifle (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist icedearth.freeforums.org

icedearth.freeforums.org

This wouldbe a useful link for fans to discuss the band [12]

87.80.115.46 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

no Declined, no benefit to Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

www.woodingdeanholycross.co.cc

Hi. Please would you whitelist the above site address which I wish to add to the 'External Links' section of the article on Woodingdean (a suburb of Brighton and Hove). It is a free non-commercial website for the Parish Church of the village of Woodingdean and is maintained monthly by myself. It provides both historical and current information about the church and it's activities and would be a valuable addition to the information already shown on the Wikipedia page. Thanks in advance for your kind attention to this matter. --Davecc (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this link on the local or meta blacklist. Have you tried adding it to the article? OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes I have and it is rejected due to a part of it (appears to be the CO.CC bit of the address) being blacklisted.--95.150.140.65 (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, this and the other link you added are not official sites of the Woodingdean article,, and would appear that adding them would also be a Conflict of interest. Some things to keep in mind before proceding further;
--Hu12 (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 Not done Stifle (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Without wishing to get into lengthy communications or arguments concerning the various points of policy or conditions referred to in the above reply I would simply say that, in my opinion, the Parish Church of Woodingdean website to which I wished to add a link is no more an advertisement or encouragement to join the church or change one’s faith than the Wikipedia article itself is an advertisement to encourage people to move into the village or for that matter that the ‘Reference’ to Peter (not Robin) Mercer’s book ‘Woodingdean 2000’ is an advertisement to sell his book. My sole intention was to add a link to a site that actually provided up-to-date factual information, both past and present, about the Parish Church in Woodingdean which I thought would be quite useful to anyone desiring to know more about the village of Woodingdean and its activities. However, if you still believe that such links infringe the terms of Wikipedia I will not pursue the matter further. I will also remove the link to the Group Ministry website to which the Parish Church of Woodingdean is a member.
Note: the other link shown i.e. http://www.woodingdean.info/ which has been added by someone else, and which I assume has been allowed as an ‘official’ link, appears to be no longer maintained or available and, as such, is of little use.
--Davecc (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist examiner.com page(s) for article George Michael (sportscaster)

I'm trying to fix an error I made in showing references from other sources that proves that he's dead, yet due to some examiner.com news links as other references posted months earlier, I am unable to do so. ErikNY (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume your referring to your removal here. Unfortunatly examiner .com, is a scraper site, not a real news site nor is it the washington Examiner. The first one is a 404 Page not found link (need a new reference here) and the second was scraped from the legitimate source found here (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/farewell_to_the_king2007-02-27T08_00_00.html). The second ref is an easy fix. Thanks  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist sfgate.com pages for Article Chris Daly

It appears a bunch of examiner.com edits have been blocked, and have completely changed this article. Furthermore, It appears there is some confusion in regarding sfgate.com, which pages have apparently also been blacklisted from this article. Sfgate.com has nothing to do with examiner.com, it is the official website of the SF Chronicle, not the examiner. However when I attempted to add a link from sfgate, it said it was a blocked sight for Chris Daly. KermitClown (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The site http://www.sfgate.com, is not blocked.  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist single page worldinstruments.suite101.com/article.cfm/tin_can_instruments for article Ramkie

I wish to add the URL for this page to the references list for the article on the ramkie. It provides more complete information on this folk instrument, including instructions on how to build one. A commercial site that sells ramkies already is listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgallis (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

suite101.com links:
  • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
  • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
Unfortunatly you (Vgallis (talk · contribs)) appear to have a Cpnflict of interest with the Dec 23, 2009 suite101 article written by Victor A. Gallis. Additionaly Wikipedia is not a vehicle to "make money" promoting your suite101.com page. no Declined --Hu12 (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

4shared

Please whitelist http://www,4shared,com/file/151991255/b13331fb/JC_Smit_Chris_Streicher_Boeremag_Louis_Pretorius,html Replace the , with . It is a document and not spam. --41.18.100.246 (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Anon request to whitelist a link to 3 day old "account" on a file sharing site... unlikely to be reliable source. --Hu12 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 Not done Stifle (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/x-13791-Baltimore-Disease-Prevention-Examiner~y2009m11d4-Records-show-case-of-dystonia-is-psychogenic-and-not-related-to-flu-vaccine


I'm about to post an article which would benefit from this link. Examiner.com is banned because it superficially appears reliable but is in fact a "citizen journalism" site with very limited editorial oversight. However, this particular link is to an article by Rene Najera, who is an epidemiologist with the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and I want to cite him on a topic of epidemiology. In fact, all I really want to do is cite his citation of a public records database. EvanHarper (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Examiner.com:
  • Has no editorial oversight
  • Articles are essentially self-published (see WP:RS)
  • Offers incentives to writers to increase page views
Therefore I am of the opinion that this request should be declined, and will duly decline it in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
no Declined Stifle (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

www.amazon.com/dp/6303194753?tag=imdb-adbox

Amazon is presumably banned as an online bookshop, and most links would therefore be merely advertising. The unblock for this specific page, concerning the video of the Running Blind TV series, is to verify the high price at which the now extremely rare videos change hands. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be citing that page as it's a primary source (and it could change in the morning anyway). Instead, cite a reliable source which has written about it. At worst, cite an Amazon page that is not an affiliate link (which should not be blocked). Stifle (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 Not done Stifle (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

dom3.servegame.com/wiki/

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

(please unblock this namespace)

This site is a (media)wiki about the game Dominions3 created from fans of the game. See [official dom3 forum entry]

Seeing the Link from the wikipedia article to the dom3 wiki is very important for everyone interested at the dom3 game. --Horst_F_JENS (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Fansites are a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. It would seem to also fail Verifiability and Reliable Source guidelines also. Its not a "reliable source" for all the same reasons Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It has no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and content is self-published, which includes open wikis.--Hu12 (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
sound extremly stupid to me. with the same arguing, the existing links of the dom3 article (pointing to chinese fan-wiki, strategywiki etc.) should all be deleted and if i understand it right wikipedia articles should also do not link to wikipedia itself (being an open wiki with questionable editing). please, let me modify the dom3 article (i started it and it was one of the reasons to invest time into wikipeda) so that it be useful for it readers. the dom3 "fan" wiki i want to link to is "the" official dom3 wiki right now, read press release form game's publisher http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=44186 for more information. being forced to have to beg for a simple thing like posting an external link on an article that would not exist without me is a HUGE dissappointment and shows how a good idea (wikipedia) can go downhill.--Horst_F_JENS (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
First WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second, "fan wiki's" (with 4 active users last 7days(You being one of them)) are not compatibe with inclusion gudelines. Thirdly, the official site is already listed, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm to everything and enything dom3. From the looks of Dominions3 whats needed are citations, not links Not done--Hu12 (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the article in question, I see a message box saying "This article is missing citations or needs footnotes." As for citing sources, from the relevant article:
When to cite sources: Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, and when uploading an image.
None of the three references that are in the article right now seem to serve any kind of purpose, as I don't think that somebody wants to fact-check if the game really offers "over 1500 units, 600 spells and 300 magic items" (first citation), "only has a small amount of economic management, focusing almost entirely on creating and deploying armies" (second citation) or that "the battles cannot be influenced once the computer calculates the new turn, but players can set simple orders for their troops before the battle is calculated" (third citation). The last fact may be a little surprising, but it's not like this is really extremely relevant information that would need verification through some "reliable source" as the cited information there is either irrelevant or easily checked where ever you look without digging around much.
The request wasn't to add the Wiki as a "reliable source" anyway. Regarding the second option from the message box on top of the Dominions 3 article, the need for footnotes:
Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes. First, to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article. Second, they are used to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article.
The citation argument is in there again. As explained earlier, the Wiki has the blessings of both the game's developers and publisher and was featured in an official news announcement from the game publisher which was reproduced among multiple gaming news sites. But much more important is the first part, that the Wiki in question does provided additional material which would be useless to include in the Wikipedia article. Even if some Wikipedia guidelines prevent to declare it as being a "reliable source of information", it isn't meant to "proof" anything in the Wikipedia article. As it is the most extensive knowledge base regarding the game, it would make a lot of sense to add it as a footnote for people that want to add or seek information regarding the game which would depart from encyclopedic information as sought by Wikipedia.
Could you illustrate how the Wiki in question could be listed among the footnotes, due to its importance for the community of the game?
129.217.150.82 (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Footnotes are reference(s). The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate to this are: Verifiability and No original research. For questions and discussions about the reliability of sources, the appropriate place for discussion is at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Discussions about improvements for the Dominions3 article is better served on that Articles talkpage, not here. thank you. Closed.--Hu12 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

www.conlanganon.co.cc

I wish for this site to be unblocked because it is a friendly forum for conlangers with nothing potentially harmful on it. I believe it is useful for people reading the conlang page on wikipedia to have links to such communities. I also believe there may be a problem with the site http://co.cc/ concerning issues like spam, however, although this site uses the service of http://co.cc , it is not involved with anything that site does and therefore is not malicious or anything of that nature.

Thank you. 202.36.110.10 (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunaly this site is an unofficial fansite/forum (With only 2 total menbers) which makes it a Link normally to be avoided which fails Wikipedias External Links policy.--Hu12 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 Not done Stifle (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

z3.invisionfree.com/Kettering_Anime_Club/index.php?

I would like this site unblocked because it is the web forum for the Kettering University Anime Club, and I wish to link the forum to the "List of student organizations" section of the Kettering University article where the club is mentioned. Wikipedia would benefit from this by being able to provide the most accurate reference to the club and it's activities.

Thank you, Radnom2, current president of the Kettering University Anime Club. --Radnom2 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined; web forums are not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


kfantransmittertour.co.cc

This site replaces a now-defunct geocities site referenced for historical data on Wiki pages about radio stations KFAN_(AM) Minneapolis and KFXN Minneapolis. Both the old site and new site were/are created and maintained by the former Chief Engineer of the stations.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.4.201 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  • What links do you propose to add, and to what articles? Also, how is this site a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The links proposed are those referenced in the two articles above. In short, "kfantransmittertour.co.cc" should be whitelisted; as noted above, it is the new (relocated) home of the defunct geocities pages created and maintained by the former Chief Engineer of the stations which the articles are about. The information contained at that site has been researched and presented by the individual who maintained and supervised the technical operations of the two radio stations under discussion. This person has first-hand knowledge of the subjects, having been employed by the owner of the stations in the position responsible for proper and legal operation and maintenance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.4.201 (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not going to whitelist the entire domain. What specific links do you want to use? Stifle (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

kfantransmittertour.co.cc is the URL to whitelist. It is the index page to all of the site's sub links, 100% of which pertain to the articles. The site is a small, focused site about the stations and nothing else. Take a look and you'll see it is acceptable to whitelist and makes sense to do so given the number of deeper links, all living on the one main page.

This page - kfantransmittertour.co.cc/alw.html - confirms the identity and validity of the site's author should there be concern about anything lurking below the surface; the previous, 100% identical, geocities site (exactly the same as kfantransmittertour.co.cc, only the URL has changed) had been listed on the Wiki station articles for years without issue. The change under discussion is simply a site move/URL change prompted by the discontinuance of geocities. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.4.201 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have told you we are not going to whitelist the entire domain. As you are not apparently willing to specify which link you want us to whitelist, this request is  Denied. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It was explained quite clearly and politely why it is appropriate to whitelist kfantransmittertour.co.cc. You have not explained why it should not be whitelisted. Why do you think it should not be whitelisted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.206.15 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • The request appears to be for the site's index page, which is accessed by the main URL without an extension, to be whitelisted. - Eastmain (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/practical-dita/7692915

I was adding a reference book to the other reading section to the Darwinian Information Typing Architecture. This link is a direct pointer to the book referenced and would help the reader acquire the document if they so wish. 64.132.140.14 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

no Declined Wikipedia is not a shopping site. We don't like to products like that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If that's the rationale, then you should edit the other entries in the Further Reading section of the article and remove references to the purchase sites for those. You should have a consistent policy and blocking for this reason does not make sense. If someeone wants to get the reference, they will. If not, they won't follow the link. --Jvazquezsdi (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

First, The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other "links" in articles do or don't exist; So just pointing out that some link exists in an article somewhere doesn't prove the link your requesting should also be added. In addition, its a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Finaly, Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a book. --Hu12 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think blacklisting Lulu.com pages should be reconsidered. There are numerous free PDFs available there, as well as printed books sold not for profit. As a DIY publishing site, it may even be the only place one can find out of print versions of a text republished by authors, or even originals worth reading. I tried to link to a book I authored there, but it was blocked. There is a free PDF version available to download, and the printed and bound book is for sale with no profit margin. I may, or may not be a distinguished author, but at least my User page should be able to point to all my publications, including Youtube videos, Flickr photos, papers in journals, and books in Lulu. I hope you will lift the ban on Lulu.com and instead treat each link on its merits. Especially if Wikipedia is ot getting swamped by spam from Lulu. Leighblackall (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You can cite the book without linking for a site where people can buy it. Also, if it's a free PDF, put it up on your own website and cite it from there. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Request to whitelist a single page from associatedcontent dot com

I'd like to request the whitelisting a single web page from the blacklisted web site www dot associatedcontent dot com. The page is http://www.associatedcontent dot com/article/678813/the_forgotten_confederate_soldiers.html?singlepage=true&cat=37 (The Forgotten: Confederate Soldiers Who Died at Gettysburg.) I'd only like to add this link to the "External Links" section of Gettysburg National Cemetery article. I feel the linked web page contains valuable historic information that may not be entirely sourced to Wikipedia standards. As an external link, the user certainly realizes that Wikipedia standards don't apply. Krellkraver (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Associated Content:
  • Articles have no editorial control; they are essentially self-published (see WP:RS)
  • Offers monetary incentives to authors to increase page views
  • Fails WP:ELNO #1: "avoid [a]ny site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article".
Therefore, I am minded to deny this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 Denied Stifle (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

petitiononline.com

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

it's a site for petitions relevant to many topics on wikipedia. why must the default position of wikipedia be so bureaucratic fascist? in the specific case it's for the history channel tv show ufo hunters which has been cancelled and there is a petition by the creators of the show to bring it back. it is very relevant information and anything but spam 85.83.19.103 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Dan Frederiksen

First its a Link normally to be avoided, and second Wikipedia is not a "vehicle for petition recruitment" , nor is it a place to to promote a cause.Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here.no Declined.
Closing as vexatious--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Single page on iPetitions

Hello, I would like to request the whitelisting of a petition to boycott the [[Alexandria Aces {Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball League}]] -- www.ipetitions.com/petition/boycottaces Thanks! BBT2005 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

no Declined Petition links are Link normally to be avoided, and Wikipedia is not a " vehicle for petition recruitment" , nor is it a place to to promote a cause OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


TVrage.Com (Request to whitelist, The Sequel)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

To whom it may concern,

My name is Roger and I represent TVRage.com, a non-profit informational website (we just add enough ads to get by) that was blacklisted from Wikipedia about 3 years ago. Since then, several attempts have been made to remove the site from the blacklist only once by us. However, these attempts were made in an unprofessional manner by people whom were not in any position to officially represent the site. I am the actual owner of TVRage, and I simply ask that you read through the points I'd like to make here and keep an open mind.

The original claims made 3 years ago (and actually, the same claims that are still being made despite the large amount of time that has passed) against TVRage to keep the blacklist can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talkpam-blacklist&oldid=178668854#www.tvrage.com

One of the first offenses listed against us is of "meatpuppeting". The person primarily responsible for this was a former member of TVRage named "JohnQ.Public", who at the time claimed to be the owner of the site. Let me just clear the air and say that JohnQ.Public was never an owner of TVRage. At the time he began making disruptions in the discussion boards at Wikipedia in our name, he was a high seated volunteer staff member. However, his actions never had the consent of the rest of the staff or myself. In fact, as soon as I became aware of his activities he was stripped of all his powers and removed as a member of the staff.

There are also claims of members other than JohnQ.Public "meatpuppeting". Keep in mind TVRage has over 50,000 members and over 2.5 million viewers a month, not to mention over 12 million API requests a day to share information. So, in my mind, to banish an entire web site for the actions of a few individuals acting on their own isn't a logical or fair decision at all.

The second offense listed against us is "Spam and AfD canvassing on TVRage.com". There are 5 forum topics that discussed Wikipedia having a TVRage.com page. Five topics, and they weren't even discussed by people who are staff. Should the site be responsible for topics posted that might or might not get TVRage banned at Wikipedia?

Another offense sometimes made against us is that we are a site filled with only copied or stolen material. Most people have gotten this idea from JohnQ.Public, who wrote a blog making these claims immediately after he was removed from his position as a staff member. I'm sure you can recognize the symptoms of a disgruntled employee. The fact of the matter is, any copied or stolen information that is found on TVRage is removed as soon as it is brought to our attention. Our volunteer editors work hours every day to make summaries and other information unique to TVRage. Quite frankly it's unfair to automatically brand their material in a negative way based on one person's false and jaded claims.

We would note that Wikipedia allow links to epguides.com. You even have a template for it. In the last few months, epguides has chosen to retreive half of its information from TVRage. It's not clear why you are allowing a link to site that relies on TVRage for 50% of its information, but don't allow linkage to TVRage. You can confirm this with the staff at epguides.com.

In the past, we have been told that if individual Wikipedia editors make the request, you might lift the blacklist on a case-by-case basis. The problem is, having us on a "blacklist" by its very nature creates a potentially prejudicial atmosphere. You're telling editors not to use TVRage by putting us on a "blacklist"... but at the same time that if they use us, they can remove the blacklist.

If there are any issues not covered above that we can address, please let us know so that we can address them. We are not interested in "flooding" Wikipedia with links. We don't believe this will happen, but if somehow it does, we are glad to work with any Wikipedia staff members to take action against TVRage members who abuse the procedure.

In conclusion, I simply ask that you review the points I've made here and seriously consider removing TVRage.com from the blacklist for the purpose of adding us as a link when appropriate. TVRage has unique information about shows retrieved from credits and extras from DVDs that are not on Wikipedia and other TV informational websites. In the last 2 years, TVRage has become the number #1 source for a lot of people and they share their information, just as Wikipedia does. We as a community genuinely feel that TVRage has a lot to offer, and we believe that we also have the evidence to back that up.

If you don't choose to lift the blacklist, fair enough. But we will continue to pursue this matter as TVRage continues to grow.

In any case, thank you for your time.

Happy new year to all and hopefully TVRage can get a clean slate in 2010

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.162.136 (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Some background
Discussions on meta:
Discussions on en.wikipedia:


Spam and AfD canvassing on tvrage.com
  • www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=5&fid=6635
  • www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=12&fid=382
  • www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=12&fid=476
  • www.tvrage.com/forums viewtopic.php?mid=12&fid=477
Other disruption
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV.com
    • speedy kept as a bad faith nomination in revenge for the TVRage deletion
  • www.tvrage.com/profiles/JohnQ.Public/blogs/view/?vid=10089
    • A former staff member states: "It's no secret that this entire site, and the foundation of its existence, is based on getting information from other websites and formatting it to our standards. Why bother to lie people, we all steal info."
First about being "non-profit" or epguides.com see WP:OTHERLINKS. Despite the seriously disturbing abuse, TVRage.com is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias other specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.
  • quote:"Like wikipedia, TVRage.com is a website where everyone can contribute" by 62.235.155.130 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunatly TVRage.com is not a "reliable source" for all the same reasons Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It has no editorial oversight, anyone can contribute (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published.
In addition to failing "Wikipedias" inclusion criteria described above, the previous facts still remain;
  • Massive Meatpuppetry;
  • Widespread disruption;
  • gross incivility;
  • persistent vandalism;
  • harassment;
  • persistent spamming;
  • Multiple requests/discussions and declines all with no consensus in favor of these links;
  • process abuse -massive sock/meatpuppetry in deletion discussions;
  • process abuse - Bad faith nominations of other articles (ie. TV.com[13]);
  • accounts used exclusively for disruptive purposes, such as vandalism;
  • Multiple instances of off wiki canvassing for inclusion at tvrage and elswere including pettitions([[14]);
  • persistently violating other policies or guidelines.
  • Threats of continued disruption; "But we will continue to pursue this matter as TVRage continues to grow."84.192.162.136 (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[15]
The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is continuing to use Wikipedia to promote their own interests, not wikipedias. If a specific link is needed, a trusted, established editor (without a conflict of interest) may request it on a case-by-case basis, where a url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source.no Declined (the prequel)--Hu12 (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
respond

You keep making the same arguments which have been explained in the text. one might even think the reason you don't really care whether it's banner or unbanned you just want to make it easy on yourself. And to throw in a bit of a conspiracy theory Why are TV.com links allowed everywhere whether or not it has any value, some are even linked to ghost pages with no information whatesoever.Is the reason perhaps that tv.Com/cnet donates a lot of money to your website and if so that would defeat the core purpose of wikipedia of no advertisements, you might as well place ads if you make these kind of deals because it again favors the websites with money and not the websites with content who can't make hundred of thousands in donation. TVRage has become in the last 2 years the number #1 source for a lot of people and they share their information, isn't that something wikipedia does. TV.Com asks money to share their information, TVRage's motto is free information for all like wikipedia, they just place ads on our site to help the server costs. we do not want links on wikipedia for our benefit, I'm passed that this simple is about injustice about the situation, you have to ask an editor to add a link if it's valid ? what the same editors like you who always block the whitelist request. doesn't surprise me wikipedia is losing tens of thousand contributors a year if the kind of people they have to deal with are like you, you can't even make sense of the logic behind the argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.162.136 (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

--Additional information--

My name is Ryan Janssen, and I'm the CEO of SetJam, an online TV directory. I have no information about what has happened in the past with TVRage.com. What I can say is that TV Rage is an important and essential resource for any person or company trying to make sense of TV (particularly as it moves online). Their content is broader and deeper than any other source we have found and it is clearly the product of a dedicated and enthusiastic community. They also have an open API that makes their efforts available to the internet as a whole. In short, their site very much mirrors the mission and accomplishments of Wikipedia itself. +1 on lifting the ban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.23.11 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger, you did not read it, did you? You keep using the argument, that tvrage.com is similar to Wikipedia, well, that is just the reason to not link to it. Making bad faith assumptions is not going to help either. You may have forgotten that we are just volunteers here, we don't earn anything here (but you are free to donate money to Wikipedia if you think it will help your cause).
Ryan, please create an account, and confirm your affiliation. Editing as an IP does not have ANY impact on this discussion, especially not seen the past of this situation.
All in all, no Declined (and please consider what Hu12 has said, it does give a good hint as to what your next steps could be .. ). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 21:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Why does he or any staff member at Wiki have to "hint" or "give a good hint"? The reason requests keep getting posted here is because at best, all Wiki staff does is "hint". Then when Roger says he will post in the future because in essence all he's getting are hints, it's considered a "threat of continued disruption" (in a somewhat hostile tone). Why is posting in a legitimate thread, only on the page set aside by Wiki to pursue the specific matter, considered a "threat of continued disruption"? The only hint seems to be that staff is suggesting that Roger canvass individual editors...?
Also, Beetstra, while your input is appreciated, the problem is that there are hundreds of sites linked here that are "similar to Wikipedia". They have no editorial oversight, anyone can contribute (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published. Even if you ignore TV.com. :) If you try to remove them, you are typically informed that they're "established sites" or something similar. Even if they are filled with errors and omissions, and violate the policies above. That's where the confusion comes from. No one is saying they should be blacklisted, but the fact that criteria is sited for exclusion of TVRage, when so many other sites blatantly violate it, leads to a very confusing situation. --Gadflyr (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this is Ryan and I did just create an account. I'm not entirely sure how to claim the above comment, except to say that it was me. Good luck with the discussion guys. I'm sure there is a way for Wikipedia and TV Rage to compliment each others efforts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drstarcat (talk • contribs) 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes i read it and it still doesn't make sense, as i previously said i don't care if people link to tvrage from this site, i am just annoyed with the fact that you somehow think it's not a valid source of information, we have tons of shows that are complete with full cast crew in each episode compare that to the guides of tv.com who basically use it for profit by adding more and more ads and less and less information, it can be compared with the downfall of the newspaper, they started to focus more on adding ads in the news paper in stead of circulation and now they are paying the price, but thats an off topic tidbit. the arguments you make make no sense to me because at the end of the day tv.com is no more a better source then TVRage, they are even worse and they are allowed, unban tvrage or don't unban tvrage, but if you are all about fairness tv.com should have the same faith as tvrage, they should be banned as well by your standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.162.136 (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, is there some reason that only a single site([16]) is conclusively cited as "off wiki convassing," when it's almost three years old and has a total of three signatures? Ditto for citing one "former staff member" who is former because he was fired as a staff member, and posted his comment after he was fired. This gives the impression that Wiki staff simply keep repetitively posting the same "evidence," rather than reevaluating and looking at current facts and information when they get the occasional request (2-3 times a year, tops?) only through the proper channels on this page to... reevaluate.

Returning to a point above, however... epguides.com. Epguides is a nice site and all, but they have no editorial oversight, anyone can contribute (see WP:RS) and what articles they have are self-published. Plus... what purpose do their links serve at Wikipedia? They are simply a gateway to TV.com and TVRage, pulling all of their info from those sites and then providing more links to the info on those two sites. Even if epguides.com wasn't simply a gateway, every TV show page on Wiki has or should have a "List of Episodes" page. And yet, epguides.com has a Wiki template and a link on many many TV show pages. This isn't an argument to remove or blacklist them: it merely points out that the criteria cited by Wiki staff on this topic is applied in a confusing and inconsistent matter.

Overall, the question really is this: without simply giving "a good hint," or falling back on repetitive citing of Wiki policy, could someone clearly state how any site can prove that they wish to promote Wikipedia's interests, not just their own, when posting links? The "big picture" is that yes, 3+ years ago there were some abuses. The 'bigger" picture is that the persons responsible have been removed from position, none of the behavior has been repeated, and the site in question meets the same criteria as many other sites that have links at Wikipedia. If there is no statute of limitations, and Wikipedia will simply continue to consider actions that took place 3/6/9/12/20/100 years ago... well, just say that and it will save everyone a lot of time. :) But hinting/saying to canvass editors, when canvassing isn't allowed, and to meet certain criteria when many other linked sites here don't meet that criteria, is just going to continue the requests, because clear answers aren't forthcoming. Either that, or the people making the request are just stupid, and you have to dumb it down. :) --Gadflyr (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the question it all boils down to concerns this: TVRage is accused of being "someone who is continuing to use Wikipedia to promote their own interests." It's impossible to prove a negative, but fine. Here's the question: What more CAN TVRage do to promote the interests of Wikipedia? TVRage is a site that, like MemoryAlpha, IMDB, EpGuides, TV.com, and many more sites that you already list, focuses on much more detailed information on individual shows: individual cast, crew, quotes, references, internal continuity, recaps, and photo galleries. The type of information that Wikipedia says isn't suitable to a general encyclopedic work.

Wikipedia presumably wants that kind of information, because they already provide links to sites that provide that type of information. TVRage meets Wikipedia's criteria as much as those sites do. So you do want that type of information. TVRage provides that type of information. How can TVRage provide it and promote Wikipedia's interests?--Gadflyr (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My name is Chris R. and I am the Admin of ShareTV.org, a television community site which generates over 3.5 million pageviews monthly. We use the TVRage API in order to update our upcoming episode countdown on all our show pages. We've tried looking into data provided by imdb and tv.com, but they weren't near as accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharetv (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing as vexatious. This has been declined by 5 (five) administrators in the last 2 momths1-2. A contentious fact does not become uncontentious by virtue of repetition. The same usual anon and sock/meatpuppets arguing WP:OTHERLINKS, which is not relevant or valid to whether the link in question should also exist. Additionally threats of continued disruption in this topic have been made;
  • "But we will continue to pursue this matter as TVRage continues to grow."[17].
  • Similarly done by the Gadflyr account by forum shoping in order to discredit/joejob IMDB, with the same resoning the TVRage.com white-listing was denied3.A similar pattern which occured previously to TV.com, in this situation.
Abuse of process is disruptive, and despite the clear evidence of abuse, continued requests is "gaming the system". Further evidence of TVrage and its related associates disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. --Hu12 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

www.articles-oceans.info

I try to add my site link to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_(grammar) but i have received the error message "Your site is blocked". I was wondering my site is 100% relevant. Please remove black list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.188.236 (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Its blocked because of mass spamming all from your IP range, and yet your still attempting to insert it despite blocks and warnings and clear WP:COI. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

humanticsfoundation.com

http://www dot humanticsfoundation.com/Barrett_Vs_Rosenthal_Attorneys_Fees.pdf this is a pdf of a court order document. 75.33.42.221 (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

no Declined per report--Hu12 (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Note that this was filed by the sock of a blocked user. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/01&oldid=1087726384"