MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/08

Encyclopediadramatica.com
Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

Although it is totally understandable why this site is blacklisted, I believe at least some parts of it should be whitelisted for illustrational purposes. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

Encyclopedia Dramatica and maybe others.

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

InQuahogNeato (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About
 * 2) Maybe other parts for future need, cannot point to anything specific at the moment.


 * Oppose. Every page on that site is sometimes in violation of EL #3 - "Any site that attempts to surreptitiously install malware onto a visitor's computer." Hipocrite (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you be so kind as to prove this statement? I believe I have good antivirus and anti-spyware programs, and neither detected any activity coming from there. InQuahogNeato (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The link is already in the article. I don't see the point of this request.   Will Beback    talk    08:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is masked by the nowiki tags. I believe links should be clickable, that is the whole point of having links. Besides, there is no malware on that site whatsoever. InQuahogNeato (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Their ad-providers have been used maliciously multiple times - review trashypretty, amongst others. Hipocrite (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as I use Adblock Plus, I've been surfing in a banner-free web for a long happy while :-) In all seriousness though, I've Googled "trashypretty" and came up with their webpage – looks to me like yet another \b\ forum without any traces of malware... not to mention that searching "trashypretty" on ED comes up with nothing. Again, please point at a specific page or banner that were indisputably found malicious by a known antivirus/anti-spyware/firewall. InQuahogNeato (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I gave you more than enough info. As of October 2008, ED was allowing adds from ads.trashypretty.com, and that site was listed by google as being a vector for malicious software. Hipocrite (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"for illustrational purposes" LOL, I remember comments a couple years ago on how ED links were being used to troll WP editors and to trick people into looking at shock images. Also, I don't see any possible use as a reliable source in any article, and the requester showed no example of such an use. In summary, no fucking way. The main page is already whitelisted for having a link in the infobox.

Btw, since we are already here, how about whitelisting its "about us" page: since we are using it as a proper reference in the ED article for sourcing what the website asserts about itself. It has remained non-clickable for many months P.D.: oh, I had misread the request, and I thought that it was a request to whitelist the whole site, just consider whitelisting this specific link since the main page is already whitelisted. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About
 * Hmm... thanks [[Image:smile.svg]] This was my exact initial request. InQuahogNeato (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have strong negative opinions about this website and am not going to pass judgment on it. Another admin might. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does contains an active link which was agreed upon after heavy community discussion and had arbcom's involvement in oversight. Due to Encyclopediadramatica's unusualy notorious history general whitelisting of this site link will not be likely. Formats requested for whitelisting other than the one currently agreed upon should first seek arbcom, foundation  or equivelent community support. Unfortunatly User:InQuahogNeato initiating this request has been indefinately blocked for .."Personal attacks or harassment: likely block evasion". As such, this request is closed as . --Hu12 (talk) 07:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I started a RfC at Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica to gather community consensus. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reopened The RfC has expired after 30 days, and all comments are supportive except one neutral comment. The RfC for the whitelisting of the main page was also done in that same page. There was no drama about the whitelisting. Is that enough to show community support for the whitelisting of the "About" page? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Heeeey, whitelist this one already. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ clear consensus from RFC . –xenotalk  12:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

faulkingtruth.com
Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

I'm working on Gay Agenda and the site has a great quote "The truth is, there is a gay agenda..." The author may be involved in some kind of financial scheme, but his editorial is pertinent to the article.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

Gay Agenda

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

Only this page: http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/BlogFest/1094.html
 * I am inclined to grant this request and will add it in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cafepress.com
Need a single link to www.cafepress.com/wikipedia at Merchandise. Hopefully this is sufficient info - Ask here or at Wikipedia talk:Merchandise if it isn't. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

nochex.com
Until recently used as a citation on Nochex, thus:. WP:ELYES allows "link[s] to the subject's official site". However, this is a low-importance page and if there have been severe spamming problems from the site please retain the block. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merged to request below. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Nochex.com (2)
1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

This site is a main homepage for Nochex and having seen the edited version for 'Nochex' on Wikipedia it makes sense to back up and cite someof the references to fees and account types as discussed within the article. I appreciate Old Moonraker (as noted above) has some issues with the site however I fail to understand what he means by it has been the cause of spamming problems. If it could be explained then I can gladly accept his wishes for the blacklisting but I cant understand what he means. How does is cause problematic spam? I would therefore like it whitelisted as I see no problem with the site and it is essential in providing grounded evidence for the article.

2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

'Nochex'

3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

There are a number of useful pages within the site that relate to the article however in particular I feel these pages are valuable - especially as they clearly explain the sorts of charges and terms that people are concerned over and have commented on in past versions of the article: (I have put a space in between the http: and the // as Wikipedia will not allow the published blacklisted addresses)


 * http: //esupport.nochex.com/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=31
 * http: //www.nochex.com/partners/auction/
 * http: //help.nochex.com/messages/?Action=Q&ID=271
 * http: //help.nochex.com/messages/?Action=Q&ID=273

Thanks Ssh85 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be inclined to permit these links (and/or www.nochex.com/merchant-services/) and will add them unless I hear a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the original record:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2008
 * I count at least 10 ignored warnings. Ssh85's only edits to date have been to make this request and to scrub adverse information from Nochex article.
 * With this history, I'd proceed carefully with nochex requests. Having said that, these proposed whitelist entries look useful to the article. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 09:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Still blocked. The requested diff is here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That has a link to the base website, which is not whitelisted. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

thomascarlyle.eu
Dear Sirs,

Please could you make available the link to www.thomascarlyle.eu so that I can link to it from the wikipedia pages craigenputtock and Thomas Carlyle. It would be a very useful aid to the articles as thomascarlyle.eu has much material on craigenputtock and Thomas Carlyle and is Thomas Carlyle's official European site.

Many Thanks

Jim Souther


 * This specific domain does not appear on the blacklist for either this blacklist or the meta blacklist; I suspect it's accidentally caught by another filter. The site looks useful and relevant.


 * -- now whitelisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Was originally added based on m:User:SpamReportBot/cw/thomascarlyle.eu. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

digitpress.com
Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

It contains interviews with game designers which may be used as article references.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

Cube Quest

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

digitpress.com/library/interviews/interview_paul_allen_newell.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.89.235 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to grant this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the history:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2008
 * For some reason, we have 41 of these links.


 * I recommend whitelisting this specific page since it contains a lengthy interview with the designers. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

TourMyCountry.com
Hello, I'd like to be able to include:

http://www.tourXXXmyXXXcountry.com/austria/theresianum-diplomatic-academy.htm

(remove XXX's to read; I put them because otherwise I can't even post this!)

Reason: the article Gottfried van Swieten mentions the Theresianum as where van Swieten was schooled. The web page cited gives a pretty good history of the school, not otherwise available AFAIK.

Note: I don't know why TourMyCountry.com was blacklisted, so if you need to turn down this request I will understand.

Thanks for your help, Opus33 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This report explains why it was blacklisted. I am inclined to whitelist the requested link unless I hear a reason not to in the next day or two. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Stifle. Opus33 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

vbs.tv
VBS.tv should be linking to the official site. The domain was spammed, but whitelisting for this use should be acceptable. Thanks &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 19:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it be OK to whitelist \bwww\.vbs\.tv/\b ? Stifle (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I plan to (only) link http://www.vbs.tv from VBS.tv (& remove the misleading links). &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, does not work, this would enable everything after it, as the final \b is here the word boundary of a possible beginning further url (after the unescaped '/', which should be a '\/'). Is there an index.htm or an about.htm we can use?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need to escape /s, the system does that automatically. Awaiting further reply from Mike.lifeguard. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.vbs.tv/about.php would be acceptable. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; @en.wb 14:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would agree that perhaps  http://www.vbs.tv/about.php  may apropriate considering the overwhelming evidence of abuse :Accounts
 * Cross Wiki spam Accounts es:Special:Contributions/Melanieh de:Special:Contributions/Vicegermany de:Special:Contributions/MaiTaiMünchen de:Special:Contributions/Pepples de:Special:Contributions/84.191.237.45 de:Special:Contributions/87.187.85.203 de:Special:Contributions/87.187.101.45 fr:Special:Contributions/Maryone en:Special:Contributions/201.210.238.52 de:Special:Contributions/Buchumhang de:Special:Contributions/213.39.149.77 de:Special:Contributions/MaiTaiMünchen fr:Special:Contributions/90.39.216.247
 * Related
 * redirect site
 * redirect site
 * redirect site
 * redirect site
 * redirect site
 * redirect site
 * redirect site

--Hu12 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did say it was spammed, didn't I? 9.9 Can we get this done one way or another please? &mdash; Mike</b>.<b style="color:#309;">lifeguard</b> &#124; @en.wb 13:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, ✅. If you were that bothered you could have done it yourself :) (no need to reply) Stifle (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You know I'm not allowed to :D &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike</b>.<b style="color:#309;">lifeguard</b> &#124; @en.wb 00:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Suite101.com "Safety - Is it more important than Authenticity?"
Explain why the site should be whitelisted. Safety is obviously an important consideration which often weighs agains authenticity in historical reenactment, but it is rarely discussed, and even less frequently written about.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. Certainly Authenticity (reenactment), and possibly other articles dealing with historical reenactment.

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. Probbably the best is suite101.com/article.cfm/historical_reenactment/58426/1 Another option is suite101.com/print_article.cfm/historical_reenactment/58426 which displays the entire article in a single window.

Requested by cmadler (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

losethegame.com
Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

Site is obviously relevant to an article on The Game (mind game), and is the most popular website about The Game. In fact, it's the first relevant result on a Google search for "the game". Because of this, I think it should be added to the article's External Links section.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

The Game (mind game), Jonty Haywood

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

losethegame.com/

--<span style="color:#364aa3;font-family:Georgia,serif;">Zarel (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Whitelisting the whole domain would again give people the possibility to make others lose the game by including the link in questionable places (as the abuse that was done before the blacklisting to e.g. school pages and George Bush), a practice that is (was?) encouraged by the site. Please find a suitable, specific page on the site (e.g. an about.htm), which is suitable for whitelisting.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm only asking for it to be whitelisted on the The Game (mind game) and Jonty Haywood - I thought it was possible to whitelist the domain on some specific articles, while still keeping it blacklisted on other articles? Or do I request that kind of exception somewhere else? I mean, whitelisting the domain everywhere would just be removing it from the blacklist, and I'm not proposing that at all.
 * Furthermore, is it possible to whitelist only the home page at losethegame.com/ ? Alternatively, losethegame.com/index.htm should work. Their closest thing to an "About" page is losethegame.com/faq.htm, if you feel that's a better choice. --<span style="color:#364aa3;font-family:Georgia,serif;">Zarel (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the plan of whitelisting the /index.htm. That should still hamper the general trick of replacing a school-page with the main domain.  XLinkBot can keep an eye on it for some time, if this re-enables abuse, maybe the abusefilter will have to do something (actually, I'll do that as well).
 * OK, I am going to add \blosethegame\.com\/index\.htm\b, only for use on The Game (mind game) and Jonty Haywood (other pages should be impossible now anyway). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it's been done, I oppose listing the link even in that article. It's more self-promotion than relevant to the game, and doesn't serve a useful purpose in that article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't whitlelist the main page, please someone be WP:BOLD and whitelist their FAQ page instead:
 * http://losethegame.com/faq.htm
 * It's a direct link to factual information in how the game works. A much better choice than their main page, if I'm reading correctly the spirit of WP:EL. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

meenaonthenet.com
This is the (apparently) official site of the Indian actress Meena, aka Meena Durairaj. It is hosted on galatta.com, which is blacklisted. Can meenaonthenet.com be whitelisted for her article? Fences and windows (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That site is blacklisted at meta. If you want it removed, you'll have to ask there. Stifle (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (And bearing in mind the reasons for the blacklisting, if you want to request a single page be whitelisted here, that would be OK, but you'll need to nominate a page.) Stifle (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Deciphering the reasons for blacklisting from the report on meta is beyond the capacity of ordinary mortals; the blacklisting was a mass blacklisting of alleged clients of the host, gallata.com, apparently. A specific page for Meena is http://www.galatta.com/actress/meena/main.html . Even though this is meta blacklisted, that's no reason for denying whitelisting here, by itself. We do not have authority over meta and they do not have authority over us. --Abd (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If we can whitelist the link Abd mentions for this one article without bothering meta, that'd be good. I have got used to the arcane workings of Wikipedia, but meta is an unknown to me. Fences and windows (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with whitelisting that page, as I said. But I couldn't whitelist without knowing which page to permit. ✅
 * On a side note, the statement that "[meta does] not have authority over us" may be debatable. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not debate it here. Thanks, Stifle. --Abd (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Fences and windows (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

eu-football.info
Please, remove this site from blacklist, because it has useful and detailed information. You may delete all earlier submited links, although all them were added to related pages... User, who submited them, didn`t know that it is not good. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleaser09 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This was blacklisted at meta due to spamming (see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/eu-football.info). How can we be sure it won't be spammed again, and also what Wikipedia article would benefit from links to this site? Stifle (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That user who spammed will not spam again. I hope others too.

This site may be useful for that users who want to get additional detailed information about played matches of the national football team. This unique detailed information contains line-ups with full names of players and their clubs. Users will be thankful to Wikipedia for this link to additional statistics.

Please, unlist at least one link eu-football.info/_list.php?id=123 at the page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_national_football_team,

although there is detailed info about all european national football teams on this site.

Pleaser09 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, ✅. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Pleaser09 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

astore.amazon.com/onthemargins-20/detail/0029347807
Per Theory of the firm, on Oliver E. Williamson's 1975 book Markets and Hierarchies already at fn. 10: the above astore.amazon.com source has "[ch. 1 excerpt & review] via Amazon.com." It is a unique online scholarly source as to the Williamson book and should be whitelisted for that reason. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. Is it just me, or have the sectinn headings in the Revision history become much lighter (making them difficult to read)? --Thomasmeeks (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌, this is an affiliate marketing link. In any case, we don't favour Amazon.com over other booksellers. Cite the book normally using cite book, Special:ISBN, or something. Stifle (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response, Stifle. You have amazing WP record. I do respect this page's intent and your labors in assisting it.
 * I would like to respectfully present another view. It seems to me that the reader should be WP ultimate concern. In that regard, it can be argued that stimulating competition among marketers as to unique scholarly oontent is a reasonable objective rather than necessarily blocking the availability of such content, even if it is marketed. By the same principle as employed  above, why wouldm't that require blocking Google books?  Google benefits from such sites. So do booksellers doubtless.  Those in themselves need not be cause for concern.   If users choose not to visit a link, that's one thing.  But depriving them of any such choice is something else IMO. I'm not making an across-the-board argument but for the specific case in point.   It seems to me that that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the intetested reader for unique excerpted material likely to be of general interest as to this work.  Otherwise, only those with access to a research library would likely be able to view this work (aside from buying it).   --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As regards Google Books, if you feel that should be blocked please list it at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.
 * As regards viewing inside the book (which if I understand correctly is one of your motivations in linking), that can be accomplished by linking to the normal Amazon website, rather than to an affiliate store. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for your response, Stifle. I meant to be taken as saying "Yes, to Google Books. Let's treat this case like Google Books in white-listing the requested site."
 * There is a normal Amazon website at amazon.com/Markets-Hierarchies-Analysis-Antitrust-Implications/dp/0029347807 that has the appended Review for above requested site but no link to inside the book.  The Review is IMO the work of a professional economist & an excellent synopsis of the book.  The + net value added of the requsted site IMO is the ch. 1 excerpt from Markets and Hierarchies.  If the Review by itself is admissible from an already white-listed source, I believe that the ch. 1 excerpt + review (moveover,  together rather than having to click to each) that is even better.  I appreciate your consideration.  --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced; if another admin viewing here thinks differently they can go ahead and add it. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm surprised, but I appreciate your replying and allowing further admin consideration. The above response might have been from my not being specific enough.  In any case, briefly, I believe that if a unique excerpt from a scholarly book (ch. 1 of the above Willianson book) is on an Amazon.com- affiliate's website but not on, say, an Amazon.com or Google Book website, it ought to be white-listed in the interest of scholarly access via WP.   --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest dcline. There' no actual purpose served by linking that an ordinary book citation won't accomplish, and numerous reasons why linking would be a bad idea: commercial promotion, favoring one merchant over another, setting a precedent for future abuse for purposes of driving traffic and sales, etc. I'd also suggest that the claim that such a link would "serve" readers is wrong: it serves the bookseller and the author, not the reader. --Calton | Talk 13:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I believe that the above neglects the (now expanded) bolding of my previous Edit. Amazon.com is also a commercial enterprise. Why should it have a monopoly over an affiliate?  I believe that WP readers are better served by encouraging competition for provision of information.  It should be based not [on] who the provider is (Amazon.com vs. an affiliate), but [on] who provides the most information.   Competition share may be a zero-sum game for competitors, but it is arguably a positive-sum or win-win game  as to WP users relative to information suppliers. The question of bad precedent arguably defeats the point of this page, which is to sort out cases by making appropriate distinctions.    --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. The Website in question includes apparently all or most of ch. 1.  Noting a ch. 1 excerpt link can reasonably be described as "serving the reader's interest,"   except those uninterested in the book, who would  not be tempted or inconvenienced in any case.   --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

bit.ly
Why is bit.ly blacklisted? It's an extremely useful tool that allows knowledge managers to track how effectively they are using citations and where interest lies. It can be used with any entry allowing users to track how many readers follow the citation trail. JWithing (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ We don't allow any URL shortners, as they can easily be used to circumvent other spam blocks. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What in the world is a knowledge manager? )-: Stifle (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * People like Jimmy Wales. They tackle questions such as: How can an organization more effectively share its knowledge internally and externally?  What architecture must be in place?  What is knowledge and what is information?  I wished for bit.ly to be unblocked so editors can see if users actually follow the linked citations.  Unfortunately, Jamie's concerns seem reasonable. JWithing (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Even without those concerns, we tend to rate privacy rather highly here and any tracking links etc. are frowned upon. There was nearly a mutiny when someone tried putting Google Analytics bugs on pages. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

squidoo.com/mocktail
Can you remove squidoo.com/mocktail from your blacklist. I have added a couple of mocktail recipes from the site to wikipedia and discovered that squidoo lenses are locked. This particular one is well ranked in both google and yahoo and has alot of great recipes on it. Is it possible to allow certain quality sites such as this one to be submitted or is it just a blanket no because it's a content site? — Louanne16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, its your squidoo lense. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Additionaly;
 * squidoo links:
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
 * Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Tutorials Point dot com
I'm a big fan of wikipedia and using it continuously for last 4 years. I tried adding their Ruby on Rails link here but I'm really wondering when I see this site disabled at wiki. Same time when I visit this site for Ruby on Rails, Prototype and Python tutorial then I do not find any other site to compare with these tutorials. Other tutorials are also nicely written but I'm sharing my experience with these 3-4 tutorials I have gone in past couple of months. This site would benefit the community a lot. If you are not convinced with me then try yourself to find out a good tutorial on ruby on rails and when you fail then I would request to white list this site. If this site has been banned because of some legal or some other serious matter then I can not comment on that otherwise I would recommend admin should give a doubt of benefit to this site once and enable for the community.

Another Tutorials Point.com fan here, I've scoured the Internet for months in search of a Python OO tutorial, which doesnt throw info at you, but explains it, and shows you how it appies. It's been bookmarked in my favorites, its click on more than once a day, and the site helps me out with my python. For the education of everyone, this site should be unblocked from wikipedia.

I've recently started using tutorials point.com I think its a great site to learn just about any language you will need to I constantly use them even for just a refresher. Its a great site the C, python, and ruby tutorial was easy to understand I'm sure the others are too just haven't gotten to them. This site provides free education that actually teaches not just makes you memorize, this site should be unblocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.230.72 (talk) 11:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I stumbled upon tutorials point.com while I was searching for training materials for Python. I was surprised that this site looked so similar to w3school. com, but with more content because it also tackled different aspects of programming. I would highly recommend this site for those who would like to gain technical excellence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.50.176.36 (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Past discussions on the matter in meta's blacklist:
 * meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-03 original addition due to cross-wiki spamming
 * meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-04 refusal to remove from list
 * meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-05
 * meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-07
 * meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-08
 * meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-10 another refusal, told to go to whitelist


 * I could find four different requests to the local whitelist:
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/09
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/11
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/05 discovery that the owner of tutorialspoint.com has created several domains that were also blacklisted for spamming
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/06


 * reports in wikiproject Spam:
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Apr
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Mar


 * I think that this URL should stay at the blacklist, and that specific pages are sent to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist for whitelisting, by established editors, and with justification of usage in specific articles, just like any other blacklisted site.


 * (Personally, I don't see how this site adds encyclopedic content to the articles. And, as far I am concerned, I'm not really happy about having links to any tutorials in informatics-related articles, but many editors feel that there should be at least one). --Enric Naval (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Enric, you seems to be an established editor over wikipedia, if you think people are requesting it with a reason and site having good content then I would suggest you take it forward and these pages. Specially for Ruby on Rails, Python, Prototype and Ruby pages are very very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.248.2 (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that you missed the part of my post where I say that we shouldn't link to any tutorial site, but that people think that there should be at least one. And, indeed, Ruby on Rails already links to guides.rubyonrails.org, the guides page hosted in the official site of the framework. You should contact them and ask them to link your website from there. And Python (programming language) simply links to its DMOZ category, which already has a "FAQs, Help, and Tutorials" subcategory. Again, you should get yourself listed there. And it also links to python.org, which also has a guides page. Additionally, in wikipedia we are not in the bussines of deciding which tutorials are better so we can decide which one should be promoted in the article. If necessary, in some pages about obscure topics like D (data language specification) where there are only two or three complete tutorials, we might make a choice and pick one, or even list all of them. However, that's just a WP:IAR ignoring the rules situation for certain articles that would be worsened if we didn't link to the few precious sites that deal with the topic in depth. You see, in the topics you made reference to there are lots of tutorials, and there are official guides, and there are complete DMOZ pages, so we can simply link to those, and we outsource the decisions about what tutorial to list, see WP:NOTLINK and WP:EL. For a tutorial to be linked directly in that situation there ought to be some special circumstance justifying it. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the light of the above, I can confirm that this site will not be removed from the blacklist. If an established editor feels that one or a few specified pages from the site would be appropriate, they could be whitelisted. ❌ otherwise. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its amazing response....even though this is not my site or my business to argue here...but I'm not agreed with all the above comments because if you would search w3schools.com at wiki, which is similar site, has been linked with 100s of pages. Now I'm not sure if there is any admin who is associated with w3schools.com and he is taking advantage of wiki but tutorials point guys are not established editors at wiki so they would not have their site linked to any page….strange...Hope others would be agreed with my comments here. There should be fair policy to treat community equally….everybody has equal contribution here on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.248.2 (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is Wikipedia, not wiki. The page w3schools.com is linked from two articles. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * www.3chools.com (including its subpages) is linked from about 30 articles (in a very rough count), searched with www and without www. All the rest are links from talk pages, user pages, template documentation pages, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My dear friend I'm finding a complete page for w3schools.com check it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W3Schools
 * Its very obvious there is someone from associated with both the sites wikipedia as well as w3schools. As per your comments if a tutorial site does not add very much at greatly then what this site is doing here??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.150 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think that the W3Schools article shouldn't exist, then go and nominate it for deletion for not being notable (just say it's not fullfilling the notability requirements WP:WEB). (also, you are getting different concepts mixed up? Please notice that "having a link to a certain website in the external links section of some random article" is not the same as "having an article on a certain website", they have completely different rationales and they use different policies and guidelines). This is going a bit off-topic, by the way. Just go and nominate that article if you want. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I had suggested Ruby on Rails and Python links but I got disappointed having admin answer on that. Current links in Ruby on rails is completelt useless, they why do keep such links associated at wikipedia pages. If you want to keep something then keep useful, keeping same thing in mind and being a lover of wikipedia I had suggested above links. Anyway, if you think these are not useful or they are against wikipedia linking policy then leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.164.232 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking for a Perl CGI tutorial in simple terms, with examples. That is when I found the site "TutorialsPoint.com" and read up the entire article on the site. It was very helpful. Precise and also consise in the content. Many a times, all one needs to do is write a simple "Hello World" program, and not worry about the gory details or complexities, or multiple ways of doing things. And TutorialsPoint.com did just that. It has a lot of other useful tutorials with examples listed, which are great value to a lot of users, and would be a very useful site for many other people on the net. I have found it even more useful than w3schools.com.
 * Check out the Object Oriented Perl section on TutorialsPoint.com and you would know what I mean. It is simple and stright, the way it is explained, and will get you started in no time.
 * And would refer this site to others, who are interested in getting to understand the language and features to get started, or for simple implementations. I would strongly recommend TutorialsPoint.com to be white listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.175.28.201 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 6 July 2009
 * Has been discussed extensively. Wikipedia is not intended as a guide. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It proved a monopoly of Wikipedia's admins. Rest of word who is yelling here is stupid and dump and admins over here are the only guys who are taking all due advantages. I would request someone to go a step ahead and raise this issue to higher authorities. This is a classic example of monopoly where so many users appreciated a site which may be blacklisted because of some spamming issue which may be wrong because site is purely educational site and people liked the site. Now why admins did not listen this request from so many people just because of their ego problem or what who knows.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.231.248.2 (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

article on associatedcontent.com about DIY shrinky dinks
Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

I wanted to add an article as a reference to the Shrinky Dinks article, but when I submitted the edit it was rejected because I linked to an AC article. The AC article is informational, non-promotional, and pertinent to the article; it serves to verify the claim that #6/PS plastic packaging can be reused -- free -- just like the commercial product. It's sensible to whitelist this one article.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

Shrinky Dinks, as explained above.

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

Only this page: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/387996/diy_doityourself_shrinky_dink_paper.html.

Thanks, 143.231.249.138 (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As AC articles are pay-per-click, I am inclined to decline this request as it is not made by an established editor. I will make a final decision in a few days based on any additional information that is added. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ Stifle (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. By "pay per click", I'm guessing you mean that AC pays authors based on clicks ads get from their pages, right?  If it makes a difference, no, I'm not the author of the AC article.  I was casting about for someone -- anyone -- who would verify that DIY shrinky dinks are possible.  Among zillions of results that popped up in a Google search for DIY shrinky dinks, that particular article seemed well-written.  I have edited Wikipedia for a long time, but haven't been editing from my account for over a year because of a new job (long story).  143.231.249.138 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The content of this link is already covered by, which was already used in the first reference of the Shrinky Dinks article. I added a Wired article that mentions that you have to use code 6 plastic. The link has nothing that isn't covered already in the article by sources of at least similar quality (DIY toys are a bit difficult to source :P ), so there is no need to whitelist. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

www.survivaltopics.com/survival/flint-and-steel-what-causes-the-sparks/
Excellent explanation to augment how a flintlock works.

I just reviewed the blacklist and see that the whole site is banned, how does one find out the reason for this? I have no affiliation with the site, I just googled flint steel spark and the referenced page was the #1 listing. snake (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC) jjs
 * This request was not handled until now because it was filed in the wrong section; please read the instructions carefully in future. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This site was spammed on various Wikimedia sites; see . Can you please explain what makes it a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at Flintlock, and that link has material that could go there, but I don't see how it can be considered reliable. The link brings to an unsigned article that centers about the chemical reaction that causes the fire, apparently in order to promote a product called "FireSteels". Looking at the "About Survival Topics" page, I didn't find any sort of editorial control of quality, and the "Send Us Your Survival Topic" page seems to imply that anyone can submit an article and get it published. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

hubpages.com
Please put on whitelist hubpages.com/hub/Voodoo-Spells--Obeah-Black-Magic Hubpages are all over the internet and some have very good material.This one in particular is written by expert in their field of voodoo. The specific link is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Voodoo
 * How is it a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ningboexpat.com
Please consider the site for white listing as it is a non commercial website with only providing information to the expat community. Besides Google AdSense no other advertisement. NingboExpat (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌. This page is for requesting that one or a few links from a website be permitted for use. If you want to use one or a few links from a website, please specify the links. If you want the entire website to be permitted, please file a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

ningbolife.com
is a non spamming and non-aggressive website of the Ningbo Foreign community. No spam or any attacks come form this site. There should be no reason for blacklisting the site. If any doubts you can discuss with me. Thank you. NingboExpat (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌. You've already requested this at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist; let's keep the discussion there. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Petitiononline.com
No doubt there are plenty of reasons to block some petitions from Wikipedia but blocking the entire site? There are something like 70,000 petitions, surely some have to be worthy of mention. Petitions may not be equivalent to fact but the fact they exist is a fact that pertains to public perceptions and sentiment. The article I would like to mention the existence of petitions in is Short (finance). The specific pages i would like to reference is Thank you.Canbyte (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌. Perennial request; WP:NOT applies. If the existence of the petition has been covered in reliable sources, cite them; if not, it's not appropriate content for Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Gotrekking.org
This site has been said as spam due there are links in many references. Nevertheless is natural due each trail links more trekking info to it´s specific gotrekking description. Please check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.9.12.211 (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌. This page is for requests to permit one or a small number of specific pages on a blacklisted site. Please specify which page(s) you want whitelisted and detail the Wikipedia article which would benefit from a link to that/those page(s), or if you want the site delisted entirely, make a listing in the correct section of m:talk:Spam blacklist. Stifle (talk)

aforismi.awardspace.com
Explain why the site should be whitelisted. It contains a collection of aphorisms, proverbs and famous phrases.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. Aphorism

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. http:// aforismi. awardspace. com (remove the whitespace to see it)
 * , Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What it means is not a collection of external links? Isn't wikipedia a source of knowledge? If so, why don't permit to visitors to have any additional source of knowledge linked by wikipedia? This one is not a commercial website and this is not a source of spam. It is just a source of additional knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.77.56.182 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read our external links policy. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

trymasak.my
1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted. I here by request that you could consider whitelisting site www.trymasak.my. This is because this site is very helpful in giving the readers like me the recipes on how to cook in easy and simpler way and the best thing is that it also demonstrates the recipes in video form. Besides, it also gives readers the tips and guides and also glossary plus the readers can communicate with each other through forums and blogs. This site is very helpful and useful. All resources are free and users have option to register and become member to participate.

2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. I think the contents in TryMasak are carefully match with the content in Wikipedia. For instance, the article about "Kuih Koci" in Wikipedia is linked to Video Recipe of "Kuih Koci" in TryMasak.my.

3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. Therefore Wikipedia readers can see visually how to make cooking "Kuih Koci". The link in TryMasak is:- http://www.XXtrymasakXX.my/view-video-recipes.php?lang=EN&VID=TM-63788fea030401e1b1e6f9bd79e11ab9 (Remove the XX because I need to add the XX in order to be appeared here)

Thus, I hope for trymasak.my to be given enough consideration to be whitelisted/unblocked. As a frequent visitors I find this website very interesting and resourceful. I'm sure it will add value to Wikipedia article as well. Farah syazana (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We rarely whitelist sites per the site owner's request, per conflict of interest policy. Also, Wikipedia is not a cookbook. OhNo itsJamie Talk 03:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sparcadia.co.cc
1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

I am requesting that you whitelist this site (sparcadia.co.cc) as it is vital to my article. After looking through all the games in a browser-based game list on Wikipedia, and not finding a good game I almost gave up. Then, I stumbled upon Sparcadia when I was looking for my friends favorite band "Sparkadia" (Strangely they had the same names) Oddly enough, it was a browser-based game and I signed up, enjoyed it, and id love to spread the news on Wikipedia about the game! I already added it to the browser-based games list, then after completing a wiki page for it I was told its address was blacklisted.

2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

Really, only a bunch of gaming articles. Browser-based game list, eventually ill add it to the MMO and MMORPG lists, and ill have to see where to go from there. But for now its just a few articles that will benefit from having a real link.

3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

Just the one link. Users should be able to find their way from there.
 * 1) http: //sparcadia.co.cc Arcantium (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * — Wikipedia is not for spreading news or advertising games. It is for articles about notable topics. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Kippreport.com
Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

Kippreport is a daily news website based in the Middle east and provide interesting fact about this region. They are not using press release and are creating their own content. It's a platform were people are able to talk about the problem of the region. The website was block because somebody from the team make a mistake trying to add some of the page of Kippreport.com has reference and didn't follow the rules of Wikipedia. Now the content of this website is great an can really be taken as a reference in some way like the one listed in the link section. If I take this example kippreport.com/kipp/etisalat/, I think it's interesting to add has reference for the Etisalat page

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

UAE, Flickr in this case, people from the middle east because there is study about them, company from the middle east like Rani, EPPCO, Etisalat, Du, Emirates,....

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

1. kippreport.com/ 2. kippreport.com/kipp/2009/03/16/flickr-is-banned/ 3. kippreport.com/kipp/2008/11/23/dont-stop-the-press/ 4. kippreport.com/kipp/etisalat/

80.227.53.134 (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to remove this from the blacklist, as it seems like a reasonable source. I'd like another opinion first though, so can whoever sees this next chip in? Stifle (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * this provides further information on why it was blacklisted (last section). Stifle (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I recommend not removing or whitelisting any of this until an established editor requests we do so. Here's the background:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jun 1
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2008


 * Additional deleted page:
 * User:Kippreport


 * Additional account:


 * Cross-wiki spam:
 * w:fr:Spécial:Contributions/80.227.53.134


 * Since at least 4 usernames + an IP persistently spammed the link in spite of multiple requests to stop, I am pessimistic this company won't abuse us in the future. The requesting IP was one of the same accounts spamming the link. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. . Stifle (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

blog.hubpages.com
HubPages is a popular web site that allows anyone to write articles called "hubs".

I am a member of the staff of HubPages and I can assure you that we take spam very seriously. If you would like to report to use that one of our pages is violating the terms of Wikipedia, we would appreciate the feedback and take the appropriate actions.

For example, we have a strict rule that users cannot have two external links to the same domain in their article unless the domain is a well known one such as wikipedia.org.

Independently of whether you add HubPages.com to your whitelist, I would respectfully request that you add the url "blog.hubpages.com" This is the url used officially by the HubPages staff. If you take a look at the content there, you will see that it is not spam.

It consists of official HubPages communications, feature details, and snapshots into the life of hubbers and hubpage staff.

Wikipedia currently has an article on HubPages. That article cannot link the relevant blog articles that can help to clarify the relationship of hubs vs blogs etc. If you check it out, there is a reference without a link because blog.hubpages.com is not allowed.

Here is the link that I believe would be useful to add: blog.hubpages.com/2008/10/hubs-versus-blogs/

If you feel that blog.hubpages.com is not appropriate for wikipedia links, it would really help to know the reasons why. I will take this as positive feedback and respect your decision.

At HubPages, our goal is very similar to Wikipedia and Wikia. We seek to aggregate high quality of content that will be of interest and of value to our readers.

Thanks very much for consideration of this request. Feel free to contact me. My contact information is readily available at hubpages.com/help/about if you have any questions about this request.

Cheers,

-Larry
 * Please read our conflict of interest policy. Hubpages is blacklisted for the same reason as many other "publish yourself and make money!" sites are; conflict-of-interest and reliable sources issues. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jamie,

Thanks for the response. I appreciate the link to Wikipedia's policies.

Based on your response, I will modify my request. I agree with you that it is problematic to include HubPages in the whitelist. At best, it probably makes sense to request approval for specific articles only.

In light of this, I would request only that you allow the link to the blog.hubpages.com url on the HubPages article. I added the link in an effort to clarify the difference between a blog and a hub. I would ask you to take a look at the blog entry and the HubPages article.

If you feel that this link is conflict of interest in that it overly promotes HubPages as opposed to clarifying the HubPages article, just let me know and I will remove the link to the blog entry. I added it solely with the purpose of clarifying the article.

Thanks very much for considering this request,

-Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryfreeman (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

epillpharma.com
The above site is a Bio Medical firm official wesite, the firms' name is E-Pill. This company has developed a novel oral drug delivery platform that replaces drug delivery by injection. I would like to add this link as part of the list of companies of its establisher
 * 1) Explain why the site should be whitelisted.
 * 1) Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

The entry of Gross is planned to be using this link as part of listing his patents and firms he initiated
 * 1) Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

Yossi Gross Thank you very much. Marjieruthhadad (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌. You can name the company without having to link to it. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

filmtaka.com
Site should be whitelisted because.

Filmtaka.com is a daily based news website, who inform you celebrity gossip, latest movie news, upcoming casting calls details. the site is very helpful for those who want to start career or just start there career on Hollywood movies. we provide direct contact details of casting calls agents, directors, artist so strugglers can contact them directly.

site is blacklisted because one of my administrator try to add external links in wikipedia pages. My administrator is new for wikipedia who did not aware the wikipedia rule and unable to follow the rules. Filmtaka.com is blacklisted for last 3 - 4 months, i hope the punishment of the site will be over. --122.163.42.91 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

1. filmtaka.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.40.240 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is for requesting one or two links from a blacklisted site to be permitted. If you want to remove a site from the blacklist entirely, you need MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. However, the request is unlikely to be approved if it does not come from an established user. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and . Stifle (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

HosurOnline.Com
I here by request you to consider whitelisting the site HosurOnline.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.6.29 (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌. Filed in the wrong place, no specific page mentioned, and no reason for whitelisting given. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

TryMasak.my
I here by request that you could consider whitelisting site trymasak.my. This is because this site is very helpful in giving the readers like me the recipes on how to cook in easy and simpler way and the best thing is that it also demonstrates the recipes in video form. Besides, it also gives readers the tips and guides and also glossary plus the readers can communicate with each other through forums and blogs. This site is very helpful and useful. All resources are free and users have option to register and become member to participate. I think the contents in TryMasak are carefully match with the content in Wikipedia. For instance, the article about "Kuih Koci" in Wikipedia is linked to Video Recipe of "Kuih Koci" in TryMasak.my. Therefore Wikipedia readers can see visually how to make cooking "Kuih Koci". Thus, I hope for trymasak.my to be given enough consideration to be whitelisted/unblocked. As a frequent visitors I find this website very interesting and resourceful. I'm sure it will add value to Wikipedia article as well. Farah syazana (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌. Filed in the wrong place, no specific page given. You'll need m:Talk:Spam blacklist to request removal of the domain from the blacklist. Stifle (talk) 14:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Specific page of ezinearticles.com
I would like to request a whitelist of http:// ezinearticles.com/?PSP-Blue-Screen-of-Death---Simple-Way-to-Banish-it-For-Good&id=2152154 (remove space after http://) &mdash; Supuhstar  *   §  14:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to grant this request and will do so unless I see a reason not to in the next few days. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * None of these ezinearticles are reliable sources -- they're self-published pieces used for SEO purposes by their authors. Here are previous discussions:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Mar
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-05
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-09 (original blacklisting)
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/09
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-09 (removal request)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Sep
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/11
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-05 (removal request)
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-09 (removal request)
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-09
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2008
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist


 * Here's a sample of the 860 ezinearticles that particular author has created (from http: //ezinearticles.com/?expert=Ashish_K_Arora):
 * 2 Remarkable Tricks to Copy PS3 Games Without Headaches
 * 3 Absolutely Essential Facts When Making Reliable Xbox 360 Game Backup Disks
 * 4 Top Tips to Backup PS2 Games With Amazing Ease
 * 5 Proven Tips to Track Cell Phone Numbers in Double Quick Time
 * A Sure Shot Way to Fix Xbox 360 Red Ring
 * Acne Home Cures - 5 Sure Fire Ways to Glowing Skin
 * Copy PS2 Games - 3 Simple Steps to Protect Your Investment
 * Easy Way to Learn Spanish - Learning Spanish Simplified For You
 * Gold Farming - 4 Top Secrets to Make Huge Amounts of Gold Exposed
 * Healthy Homemade Dog Food - 7 Simple Ways to Make Healthy Dog Food in a Flash
 * How to Solve PS3 Blinking Red Light Problem?
 * How to Choose the Best Chicken Coop Building Plans
 * Ironic Ways to Get Rid of Rosacea
 * Lose 10 Pounds a Week - Top 5 Techniques That Work Like Charm
 * Online Soccer Betting - 3 Amazingly Simple Tips For Making a Fortune
 * Poker Strategy Guide - 3 Tried and Tested Tips to Make You a Guaranteed Winner
 * Property Investment Advice - 3 Top Tips to Become a Successful Property Investor
 * Quick Income Blueprint Review
 * Save Money While Playing - Always Copy Xbox Game Disks
 * Simple Key Notes on How to Cure Gout
 * Soccer Betting Tips - 5 Amazing Tips Revealed For the First Time
 * Some of the Best Football Betting Advice
 * Stunning Tips on Getting Rid of Moles
 * Sure Shot Tips to Ovarian Cysts Treatment
 * The Best Solutions to Learn How to Hypnotize People
 * Top 4 Striking Ways to Cure Ringing Ears
 * Top Known Solutions For Excessive Head Sweating
 * Top Ten Solutions to Get Rid of Hemorrhoids
 * Top Tips to Stop Teeth Grinding
 * Treat Male Yeast Infections in a Natural Way
 * Tricks on How to Get Your Ex Boyfriend Back
 * Tried and Tested Ways For a Natural Cure For Insomnia
 * US Citizenship Test - The Best Strategy to Tackle it Successfully
 * Vegetable Garden Design - Variety of Choices Available
 * Want a Renewed Life? 6 Tips on How Can I Grow Taller
 * Want to Feel Confident? Cool Tips on How to Lose Weight Quickly
 * Ways and Means to Decrease Underarm Perspiration
 * Weight Loss Post Pregnancy - Reclaim Your Body
 * What Should Plans For a Chicken Coop Contain?
 * Wind Generated Power - The Easy Way to Produce It
 * I've got nothing against this guy and there are no indications that he has ever spammed us (although many ezinearticles authors did). Nevertheless, I don't see how this article meets the requirements of the Reliable Sources Guideline. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, A. B. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

www.whale.to
This site seems to collect information and interviews from around the internet and as such should not be blacklisted itself. Whether one disagrees with the opinions or not on the site is not relevant imo since it is basically a news service and would be similar to blacklisting a newspaper that reported topics that some found uninteresting or even included bad reports about oneself (there is a page critiquing wikipedia on the general site).

With this in mind I thought it would be a good idea to have a basic external link to a short bio page with an interview (video) with the person associated with a wiki page. The link I'd like to add is www.whale.to/vaccines/scheibner.html for including in the associated article Viera Scheibner. The link is both brief and informative about the subject person, and appears fair and respectful reporting. thanks. sunja (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no reason given for the blacklisting and I have requested clarification on that. Meanwhile, I am inclined to whitelist the requested link and will do so in a few days unless I hear a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Background:
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-01
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-05
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-06
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-07
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-10
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007-02
 * Requests for comment/Whaleto
 * Articles for deletion/Whale.to


 * A random sampling of pages from 2007:
 * whale.to/m/map.html "Medical Mind Control"
 * "The methods used by Allopathic Monopoly to suppress the truth. Mostly propaganda---lies, hypnotism and Fearmongering.  Aka Mind Control"
 * whale.to/w/nat.html "Natural Healing"
 * "80% of my patients were well just after doing my thorough bowel cleansing program."
 * whale.to/a/medical_mafia.html "The Medical Mafia"
 * "The worldwide Elite (Boss) of Allopathy. Aka The Drug Trust, Medical Monopoly, Cartel or Industry. Think IG Farben and Medical Fascism. Only the top people in Allopathy know the whole truth on Allopathic medicine, and covert-vaccine agendas."
 * whale.to/a/wikipedia.html
 * "The Great Lie of Wikipedia:  "the....encyclopedia that anyone can edit.""


 * More whale.to-related stuff of varying degrees of relevance:
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ombudsman
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive92
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive70
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/86.10.231.219
 * Note the concerns about outing Wikipedia editors
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive103
 * Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence


 * User talk:Whaleto :
 * User talk page history


 * I was not involved with all this controversy -- I'm just passing along the history. I suggest posting a brief note at WP:ANI apprising the broader community of this request.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The requested URL links to:
 * www.whale.to/vaccines/viera_scheibner.html:
 * "This was taken from Wikipedia. The Whale editor created that page to her as you can see in the history page.  The Allopathic editors tried to delete her page.  and you can see their links to AMA shill quackwatch and other sites attacking her."
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is one of those types of sites for which very little positive can be said. Conspiracy theories, extreme fringe POV, hatemongering, etc.. It's a classic example of the worst types of sites, sites which are eminently eligible for blacklisting. I can only think of a few others that would be more eligible for blacklisting. The only legitimate use for such a site would be in an article about itself, and it's so bad and unreliable that such an article would probably be deleted pretty quickly. It is listed at User:Tom harrison/BADCITES, among other sites that should be blacklisted. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. ❌ as source is of highly questionable reliability. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

kinbacon.org
KinbaCon is the first European Convention dedicated exclusively to the Japanese art of erotic bondage. There are similar Conventions such ShibariCon and BoundCon, but their sites are not blacklisted. This year KinbaCon will be at the first time, in Lviv (Ukraine), on 23-24 May. Official KinbaCon website fully translated into 7 different languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian), that more visitors can read the info about Convention and can visit it. That's why we've created KinbaCon page on Wikipedia also on 7 different languages and for what have been blacklisted as spammers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenBDSM (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find any page called KinbaCon here, so ❌ as there is no indication as to what page you plan to use the image on. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: this domain was blacklisted on Meta-Wiki and its removal was discussed today at:
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link)


 * Here's the original Meta report:
 * meta:User:COIBot/XWiki/kinbacon.org


 * I declined to delist the domain based on OpenBDSM's request but left open the possibility if our regular editors subsequently see a need for it.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.associatedcontent. com/article/407631/interview_singer_quentin_elias_from.html?cat=33

 * I am trying to use this article to link it to a reference link in the article for Quentin Elias. For the time being, I have to list the reference from the magazine's print edition info. I can't find another link on the internet with the information found in this link.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I had to seperate the url, http://www.associatedcontent. com/article/407631/interview_singer_quentin_elias_from.html?cat=33, in order to post it in here. There is a space between "associatedcontent" and ".com". Please note that. Many thanks!--XLR8TION (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You've listed this in the section for declined requests, so I am assuming you do not want it proceeded with. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)