MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/08

globaljihad.net - Aslambek Vadalov source

 * I have whitelisted one specific article from globaljihad.net requested on Talk:Aslambek_Vadalov. Apparently it is quite useful for the biography of this chechen islamist. All other pages from the site are still blacklisted. Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have whitelisted one specific article from globaljihad.net requested on Talk:Aslambek_Vadalov. Apparently it is quite useful for the biography of this chechen islamist. All other pages from the site are still blacklisted. Alex Bakharev (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

ezinearticles.com - Flow (psychology) source

 * I've added an article from EzineArticles. The text is relevant to the article and the author (ezinearticles.com/?expert_bio=Timothy_Trimble) seems to be relatively reliable (has published books and works as a developer for FileMaker). Note: at least one similar instance has been added in the past. --Waldir talk 15:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

yachtpals.com/zac-sunderland-record-4178


I am unsure why yachtpals.com has been blacklisted, however the site contains an article on Zac Sunderland with a quote from John Reed the secretary of the WSSRC explaining why the route did not meet their round the world criteria. just wondering if this particular page can be whitelisted so that the quote from John Reed can be referenced in the Zac Sunderland wiki article.

yachtpals.com/zac-sunderland-record-4178

thanks Jeremlurker (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry I have been away. I think the source is reliable enough, it is a fairly large and respected online yachting source, however that isn't really the issue.  john reed is a reliable source, he is the secretary of the governing body for sailing records.  It is his comment, given to this online yachting article, that is wanted for the wiki page.  He was asked specifically about the Sunderland route and gave a very direct and umambiguous reply.  It is his comment that is requested.  So just asking for that one page to be de listed.

For interest - how do I find out why this url was blacklisted? Also I put this down the bottom of the list - is that the correct thing to do? Jeremlurker (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the reason for blacklisting, it is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jan_1 (set of IP spammers). Generally, you see about 'COIBot', 'COIBot-Local', 'COIBot-XWiki' (which are in this case empty, but generally contain data regarding linkuse), and otherwise you have the 'tracked' and 'advanced' links (after discussions). Tracked finds all places where there is a LinkSummary used with this link as a parameter, and the discussion is a custom search. I used the tracking to find the discussion I linked. A final method would be to go to the blacklist log, and find the log entry. That generally gives the right answer (except for some very old discussions). I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I couldn't really follow those links, many were empty, so I am not really much wiser. Was it that a single person spammed some articles and used yachtpals? In any case I am only after the page with the article that contains the John Reed quote. It seems to me that the relevance of the quote to the Zac Sunderland page is high. It is the secretary of the world governing body talking directly about Zac Sunderland's journey. So in that regard the article is an extremely reliable source. So it would be good if we could reference the quote in the wiki article properly.

Sorry - am I meant to put this down the bottom every time? Jeremlurker (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I get some other admin to review this? Stifle is away for a number of weeks. Jeremlurker (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was able to fine similar information regarding the route in a better (and non-blacklisted) source, here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll use that link.  I did do a google of his quote and that site didn't come up. Jeremlurker (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have changed the section and now reference the above source. Though i have to say I don't know in what Universe the Acorn and that "email" quote could be called a better source on a fairly specific sailing topic and John Reed.  In Bizzaro world where better actually equals far worse :)   122.110.175.54 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

www.squidoo.com/donna-karan
Please whitelist: I tried adding this page that I have curated on Squidoo.com to your page on Donna Karan at wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Karan and found that the site was blacklisted. I am assuming Squidoo's overall site is blacklisted, so thus am asking that this particular page on Squidoo be whitelisted. I feel this page would benefit the Donna Karan entry in wikipedia as it includes a dynamic content field for tweets from the Donna Karan and DKNY PR girl, a listing of current blog entries containing info on Donna Karan and extensive video of Donna Karan interviews and fashion shows (presented by season in chronological order). There is a wealth of other information included on the page as well - taken from the featured interviews, videos and articles. laschofieldLaschofield (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * www.squidoo.com/donna-karan


 * Several concerns. Suite101 articles are realy no different than linking to a blog or personal website, with the exception the authors are paid by how many page views (clicks) they get. The article in the link does not appear to be professionally written and the author is "LauraSchofield", you are Laschofield, see Conflict of interest. Here are the rules which govern this type of site:
 * ”Verifiability” — Wikipedia's core content policy. In particular:
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources” Guideline about particular types of sources
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation or source so this is --Hu12 (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

ehow.com
Is there any reason as to why ehow is blocked?Smallman12q (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ehow allows anyone to contribute with no editorial oversight; more importantly it offers authors a financial incentive to increase page views. MER-C 08:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ehow has been spammed excessively;


 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/05
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/11
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October_2008
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2009
 * Get_paid_to_spam
 * associatedcontent and related
 * getting_paid_to_spam
 * also
 * Has 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”

Perhaps if a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available--Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Request a bit.ly URL to be whitelisted


Please whitelist:
 * bit.ly/cPi7xt

I'm currently running a major edit for Petitcodiac River; however, one of the references I'm using (http://petitcodiac.org/uploads/Reports/No.97[1].doc) has a bracket in its URL, therefore making it impossible (to my knowledge) to link to it. I ran it through Bit.ly in order to redirect to the reference, although the blacklist is prohibiting me from doing so. I just would like the specific redirect to be whitelisted, or at least get some way to reference the document. Thanks, Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  04:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can use percent encoding, more specifically http://petitcodiac.org/uploads/Reports/No.97%5B1%5D.doc. . MER-C 09:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Eric Leb 01 (Page &#124; Talk)  17:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Two associatedcontent links
I would like to ask to add these two links to the discussion I am participating in the jump the shark/ bone the fish discussion

They are relevant and led me as a JTS fan to BTF for the relevancy

www.associatedcontent.com/article/1591374/has_the_jump_the_shark_web_site_jumped.html?cat=15 www.associatedcontent.com/article/1865603/rebirth_of_an_internet_classic_bone.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by David777Zebra (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved this request to the right place and added the linksummary template. However, for the record, I oppose whitelisting, since these would not be used in article space and do not need to be linked outside it. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * per Gavia immer, just copy and paste the links into the discussion like you have done above. MER-C 09:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com (specific pages)


1. Please consider whitelisting this specific link: .examiner.com/a-103703~Gallaudet_chief_says_successor_being_punished_for_old_mistake.html

This was a news article that was published in the paper (hard copy) edition of the Washington Examiner by a writer on their staff with editorial oversight. It is needed to reference a quote on the Jane Fernandes article ("...a move which Jordan called 'a terrible mistake'".) The quote is crucial to the explanation of the events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihntehgrity1 (talk • contribs)
 * AFAIK, examiner.com is NOT the Washington Examiner. Examiner.com suffer from lack of editorial oversight, and are hence not a reliable source (which is just one of the many problems that this site suffers of).  Are you sure this document is suitable as a reference, and that this is a document from the Washington Examiner?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No response => MER-C 07:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/x-958-Cape-Canaveral...


Please whitelist this page: www.examiner.com/x-958-Cape-Canaveral-Space-Program-Examiner~y2010m7d16-NASA-Reauthorization-Bill-passes--unanimously

I planned to use this link as a reference on the STS-135 page. 5 days ago, the Space Shuttle Program was granted approval to be extended with mission STS-135. Although, that information has not been added to this page. I tried to change that by adding information on it, and adding the reference, which was denied because it was blacklisted. I'd might also want to add information to other pages regarding the Space Shuttle Program if needed. I have no idea why Examiner.com was blacklisted in the first place as it provides a lot of very reliable information. Reliable information that is not even accepted. I think the whole website should be whitelisted, although if that can not be accepted. Than i'd at least like the page with the link listed above whitelisted for important information on the Space Shuttle Program extension.

Sincerely, Transit2000 (talk) 10:02, July 21, 2010


 * Examiner.com is a site where everyone can write anything, without editorial oversight. Moreover, it offers these same editors financial incentives (see examiner.com/assets/examinerfaq.html) to improve their page views.  This is not The Washington Examiner or similar; the owners of the site have tried to confuse their site with those sites, which are, unlike examiner.com, reliable sources.  That abuse also spilled over to Wikipedia, and there has been other, albeit small scale, spamming of this site.  Moreover, much of the info is scraped and available from better sources.
 * That being said, there is (some) good information on the site, why do you think this document is reliable? Or does NASA themselves not publish this data somewhere?  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There are alternatives available, such as . MER-C 07:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

www.mapsofworld.com/referrals/internet/web-browsers/historical-browsers/arena.html
Please allow following link for the Arena (web browser) article, that this web browser was widely used in the beginning of the World Wide Web. mabdul 15:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing happen here? Where is the problem? Any questions? Come one: 2 weeks were really enough! mabdul 07:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Need somebody more information or why did nobody allow to use the link in the article. mabdul 16:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ A map aggregator site does not qualify as a reliable source. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * These pages on the /refereals/ part are created by them and not collected. How does the page breach against WP:RS especial the own content of the page? mabdul 17:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing else for me to say; the site doesn't meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines any more than a self-published blog would. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is mapsofworld blacklisted if I might ask?Smallman12q (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that 11 links are already in wikipedia articles/files without any concerns but in this case it does matter?!? mabdul 22:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are not whitelisted. You'll notice here that the article is not actively linked from any article space page. The ones you found are not links (no http:// prefix) and may have been added by a spammer shortly after the blacklisting to try to semi-circumvent it. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, you're right: the weblinks are integrated as text references. but why was mapsofworld blacklisted? <b style="font-family:Courier New; display:inline; border:#009 1px dashed; padding:1px 6px 2px 7px; white-space:nowrap; color:#000000; font-size:smaller;">mabdul</b> 00:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For the same reason most of the other sites are on the blacklist; it's primarily an aggregator site that was being aggressively spammed, and it doesn't meet reliable sources guidelines. I'm not discussing it further. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've cleaned up some of the remaining links. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  08:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

tinyurl.com/yhmvp6j


This is Phil Ratté's personal campaign website. He is an Independence Party Candidate for Governor of Minnesota. Request is for white page of this link ONLY and not entire domain. The link will be located on "Minnesota gubernatorial election, 2010" page. Phil Ratté 64.19.92.54 (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This resolves to http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!7E!50!D53D5655462F/coralcalcium/BIOGRAPHY/, which isn't blacklisted. There's no reason to whitelist tinyurl for this. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * per above. MER-C 09:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Gazoomy.com


Please whitelist:
 * www.gazoomy.com

This is a legitimate and respected website. I made the mistake of hiring someone to undertake SEO work for the site and they succeeded in having it blacklisted.

I was hoping to update the page [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Variations Google Variations] which is appropriate for this website. If the website does remain blacklisted then would it still be possible to update the Google Variations page? The text I wished to place was as follows:

Google variations, or Google substitutes, are themed, domained websites that include the Google search field and functionality. They are usually hosted under a domain name that describes the theme of the site.

One of the most well known Google variations is Groovle which became a prominent website after Google attempted to sue the loan developer who created it. Google's case was that the name Groovle was similar to Google. The resulting verdict was in favor of Groovle as the grounds given by Google were proven to be unrealistic.

Other Google variation websites include "Purpoogle.com" (a purple-themed Google variation) and Gazoomy.com, as well as blackle.

86.176.104.171 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The only place where this link is really appropriate, would be on Gazoomy or Gazoomy.com .. if the page is notable for its own Wikipedia page. On all other pages it would likely be a violation of WP:NOTYELLOW.  Therefore, .  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk, I can understand that. I've created the page Gazoomy.com which explains the website. Is it possible to add a link to Gazoomy.com from this page as I currently have only a text link. Would it be worth me creating a Gazoomy page or would that be duplicating information? Your help is appreciated.

TMijatovic (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ The page has already been speedily deleted as non-notable and promotional, rendering that point moot. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Examiner
Please whitelist www.image.examiner.com/x-30099-Tampa-Gluten-Free-Examiner~y2010m3d3-enjoy-life-foods from being prevented to use. This article is a reference that adds a voice from a non affiliated source. I plan to use this article on the Enjoy Life Foods page, as this Wikipedia page may need that additional non affiliated voice. Thank you. Please note that I am asking only this page to be whitlisted and not the entire website. Thanks again! Aparky27 (talk • contribs)
 * . That Examiner article exists solely for search engine optimization and advertising purposes. Furthermore, all of your edits relate to Enjoy Life Foods. MER-C 06:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com
I have not encountered this before. I am seeking to add this page:

www.examiner.com/x-16479-NY-Astronomy-Examiner~y2009m7d31-Betelgeuse-the-history-of-a-star-name

Betelgeuse, the history of a star name Brown, Laurel

to the article on Betelgeuse. I can't figure out why site is blacklisted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The site is blacklisted because it offers its contributors financial incentives to increase page views (examiner.com/assets/examinerfaq.html) and allows anyone to contribute without editorial oversight. Please do not confuse examiner.com with The Washington Examiner and friends, the owner of these media (Clarity Media Group) deliberately muddle the boundaries between the two. MER-C 09:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll find some other sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Closed as withdrawn. MER-C 07:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

360cities.net/area/langhe-roero-italy


I tried to link this collection of 360° panoramas to Wikipedia web-pages "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langhe" and "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roero" (and correspondant pages in different languages): these pictures represent a little virtual tour of these territories. I'm an amateur photographer and the author of all these images and I don't have any commercial gain from them. On the other hand I think these panoramas are not so bad and represent an added value for Wikipedia pages.

Thanks in advance, Roberto Scavino. (to contact me: roberto.scavino@gmail.com)

Now I'm able to insert links for English, German and French languages but not Italian; please, could you allow to add this link to Italian pages too?

Thanks a lot, Roberto Scavino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.20.211.150 (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This site is not blacklisted. MER-C 08:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org


The site lenr-canr.org has a lax approach to copyright and was blacklisted for this and other abuses. Some links were whitelisted mainly at the request of user:Abd. Following the usual process of editorial debate and consensus only one of those remained in article space as of today, and I just removed it as it is an article copyright of Elsevier Publishing for which we already have a DOI link. Abd is now topic-banned from cold fusion. There are several regex expressions in the list which support the several requested links mainly as part of his project to rewrite the article in terms more favourable to the pro-cold fusion editors, but it's hard to see how that's actually going to be of any benefit as the three main advocates of this content, Abd, Jed Rothewell and Pcarbonn, are all indefinitely topic banned. The fact that the only link in mainspace was a copyright violation says it all, really. I think we should simply remove these links and discuss again as and when a good-faith editor requests them for some actual content, hopefully without the befuddling walls of text which characterised the earlier discussions. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Links for reference:
 * first request of two one link (added)
 * request for entire site (declined)
 * request for transcript of audio interview (added)
 * request for 13 papers (9 added)
 * Note that Pcarbonn's topic ban has expired it has now been placed again and extended to indefinite. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. We can do without that particular person "helping" us, I think. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1st of all, please don't de-list the transcript of the radio interview.

2nd, Jed (the website's owner) says that he got the permission of the authors of the text, which seems to be correct and true. However, looking at the copyright pages of the journals that published the papers, some say that the authors can only host copies in their own personal websites, while others reserve all rights.

3rd, I understand that in several occasions Jed has taken papers down when requested by its publisher, which seems to imply that he didn't have previous publisher permission for some of the papers, and that those papers only remained there because the publishers have not bothered to complain about them. This could perfectly be the case for several of the whitelisted papers.

4th, they were claimed as convenience copies of article sources, but they are not being used as sources anywhere due to strong disagreements in talk pages with other editors (like myself).

5th, and most importantly, those are all primary sources that were going to be used to counter the points made by secondary sources, aka original research. The secondary sources say that this sort of papers has been ignored by the majority of scientific community since the field was discredited long time ago (~1989). The intention was adding these primary sources to the article, then claim them as examples that the secondary sources are wrong, and list them as examples of what the scientists really thought of the developments in the field. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Stifle (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The authors do not have the right to give permission to publish material whose copyright they have, by virtue of submission and acceptance of publishing, assigned to the publisher concerned. They are allowed to publish papers on their own websites but not to release the material to other websites. This has been covered before. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)