MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/01

http://www.google.com/ cse/home?cx=010426977372765398405:3xxsh-e1cp8&hl=en
Hi, I've created a custom search engine that is very helpful when searching for reliable sources on a topic. Several times, I've wanted to link to it in talk page discussions, but can't because it's blocked. So what I have to do is introduce an error into the URL (usually a blank space) to let other editors use it. But since they can't click on it, it makes things pretty inconvenient and other editors don't understand what I'm talking about. So, can we have an exception to allow http://www.google.com/ cse/home?cx=010426977372765398405:3xxsh-e1cp8&hl=en? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I don't want to use this in any article, just article talk pages and project pages and talk. I'm a regular contributor to the Reliable sources noticeboard and this link would come in handy when discussing issues of reliability.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
 * I'd also like to be able to use it within my user space. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Google custom searches are blocked because of misuse of Google Co-op for earning money. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not intend to misuse this search engine to earn money. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but if we whitelist one then we have to whitelist them all. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I understand. Are you saying that this is a technical limitation?  Just to clarify, I'm not asking for all custom search engines be whitelisted, just this particular one.  Why would you have to whitelist them all?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a technical limitation, but a point of consistency. We don't allow any custom searches because of the risk of misuse of Google Co-op, and if we were to permit this one, there would be huge complaints from others whose requests we denied. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Then I'm confused as to the purpose of having a white list in the first place. If the argument is, "We can't have an exception because there would be complaints from other people in similar situations", then what's the point of having a white list?  It seems to me that that argument can be applied to every single request.  In what situation does an exception get approved?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from. I will not make a final decision on this, but will invite one of the other admins who patrols this board to decide on the matter. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't really see that issue, Stifle. We whitelist when specific links have a use for Wikipedia.  Sure, there may be more custom search engines become asked for, but in mainspace these are totally inappropriate (we don't have to provide a service to editors to have a custom search engine to find some ; that then can be use promotional by changing the custom search in such a way that certain products are found etc.).  If the use is strictly outside of mainspace by WikiProjects or Noticeboards (like this one), then I do not see the problem why we now would have to allow other custom search engines for use in mainspace.  I'd suggest to allow this one, keeping WP:OTHERLINKS in mind when others are trying to use this decision as a reason for whitelisting others.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be very much appreciated. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, this is the problem if the more active admins here recuse from a decision. Things don't get done. But anyway, ✅. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

moviereviewintelligence.com
To Movie Review Intelligence. Following a discussion here, I created a short article on the website in question, and would like to add an external link to the home page. The site was blacklisted here last October for spamming. I haven't been able to find the discussion in the archives so far. I'm happy for it to stay on the blacklist regardless - the article may yet fail the "sticky" test, and I don't think the external link will be needed anywhere else. -- Kateshortforbob  talk 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some additions, not too much actually, but persistent. Is there an about.htm or something similar that would be suitable, whitelisting the whole domain may result in the spamming to continue.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply - and sorry for the delay. Yes, the about page seems to be moviereviewintelligence.com/movie-reviews/about_this_site/ which is probably the most appropriate if linking from the article. -- Kateshortforbob  talk 17:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Any more on this? I'm also happy for the site to stay on the blacklist, but it would be good if the about page could be whitelisted to allow for a link in the Movie Review Intelligence article. PC78 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also like a follow-up for this website. I support whitelisting the site's "about" page for inclusion in the website's Wikipedia article. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 13:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "About" page is at http://moviereviewintelligence.com/movie-reviews/about_this_site/ Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 21:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * , link: http://moviereviewintelligence.com/movie-reviews/about_this_site/ --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Raruto and Lulu.com


I'm trying to add the official Lulu.com link for Raruto.

The link is http://stores.lulu.com/raruto_eng?fContentOffset=3 - Because it is an official link with downloads of the chapters (the author makes the chapters available for free), I propose that this link be whitelisted only for the Raruto page. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. Let me know if it works; I'm not 100% sure if I got the regex formatting correct. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

www.aceshowbiz.com
Please whitelist www.aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/santana/awards.html. I need it for the featured list nominating List of awards and nominations received by Santana. I need to proof the following sentence with a reference: I hope you whitelisting the "Spam link" bizarrely marked website. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 08:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Overall, Santana were nominated for fifty-eight awards and won fifty-one of them.


 * Well, it was spammed quite a bit (and that is what the spam-blacklist is supposed to stop). However, specific references can be whitelisted.  ✅.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much :)-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

eutimes.net

 * The following links were added to Hungarian parliamentary election, 2010 months ago, but was then removed by a pov editor who doesnt discuss, i just came back to the page to find it had now been blacklisted. I came to accommodate and add other sources as well, but this one has additional quotes that i havent been able to find so need this as a cite. There is a section detailing the "controversy" itself during the election hence its not used as some sort of "be all and all" link for which i presume it was blocked (why was it blocked?). The usage itself explains the link as a controversy an encyclopaedic defense of statements, not controversial assessments of fact. The section that used to refer to this link has also been added to by another RS.
 * The 2 links are: eutimes.net/2009/10/hungarian-fidesz-eyes-2010-elections-gypsies-jews-homosexuals-beware/ and eutimes.net/2010/04/nationalism-is-considerably-rising-in-hungary-close-to-elections/(Lihaas (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)).
 * This looks like a blog. Can you clarify how it meets WP:RS? Stifle (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Its sourced (the first), and the 2nd has a video. Its also not unreasonable to beleive because similar stuff was sourced to another link on the page, whereas this only provides citations for the particular/specific quote subject. It does seem like any wild spam/POV-pushing Lihaas (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 10:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone please check that the regex syntax because this is still blocked? ✄ (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Currency war
Here goes, 3rd time lucky: the article "currency war" needs the url "moneymorning.com/2010/10/07/currency-war-6/" in order to cite a reaction. it is not linking to an aspect of the page to draw viewers, but the article is an analysys (or reaction rather). The content is also cited in a manner that gives due caveat and not treated as gospel truth. Furthermore, the reactions are very plausible and not made up because similiar reactions are cited on the page, though this would further the context of the reaction. It is also an ongoing event this particularly this week.Lihaas (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a reasonable request and I will approve it in a few days unless someone posts a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I've had a busy few months. ✅ Stifle (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

thebestof.co.uk


www.thebestof.co.uk/local/tonbridge/events/34223/heritage-weekend I've tried to use the above webpage to reference the fact that Somerhill House was open as part of the Heritage Open Days in 2006, but the website is blacklisted. Can this particular page be whitelisted please? Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This was pretty abusively spammed quite some time ago (continued spamming after promising not to, if I read it correctly). However: ✅.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

neuro.cjb.net


cjb.net is blacklisted in the master list, according to the log on the basis of being a redirection domain, whatever that means. Neuro.cjb.net is the official link for the Journal of Neuroscience, an extremely reputable journal. It doesn't contain spam of any sort. (I am not familiar with blacklisting and not certain I'm making the right request or making it in the right place.) Looie496 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note, this link is available from http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/28/46/11743 instead, there is no need to use the redirect site for this. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com - "Crime partner of an ex-Alcatraz inmate commits suicide"
Please whitelist www.examiner.com/alcatraz-in-san-francisco/crime-partner-of-an-ex-alcatraz-inmate-commits-suicide. The page is written by a person who appears to be a legitimate Alcatraz historian. The article provides some background on the two perpetrators of the Newhall massacre, specifically that one of them served time at Alcatraz prison. This information is to be used for that purpose only, and I can't find any other reference that says that this man served time in Alcatraz. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Examiner.com is not usually a reliable source as there is no editorial oversight. Additionally, writers receive financial incentives to increase page views. I am therefore inclined to deny this request and will do so in a few days unless I see reason not to. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Stifle. It is not a RS for most purposes, but there may none the less be occasions where the problems will not prevent its use.   DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

associatedcontent.com


I would like to whitelist the article

associatedcontent.com/article/2065339/atlanta_classic_rock_radio_stations.html?cat=9

to use as a link in my edit because it pertains to "97.1 The River's" playlist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opey100 (talk • contribs)
 * , not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Graham Crowden
I have tried adding a link with a copy of The Times obituary of Graham Crowden, but the website seems to be blacklisted. It is a straight copy without comments. Couldn't you just accept the page and not the web site? Are the Times going to object to the copy or is it legal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.69.14.94 (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The Times obituary is already linked directly from Graham Crowden, so there's nothing else to do here. — Gavia immer (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Myzilla


I have tried adding a link to my website's test server(myzilla.co.cc) but is blacklisted. Why would my site be blacklisted anyway? Myzilla —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myzilla (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ All domains in the .cc domain are blocked due to rampant spamming. Regardless, I fail to see what purpose a link to your site would serve to this project. See also WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Willcocks citation
I'm requesting an exception to the oocities.com general site blockage for the page oocities.com/vigobios/markle.htm which is a web citation regarding Abraham Markle, a page that was formerly hosted on geocities. The page itself is straight background information on Markle and is an important citation in the article as well as a source of additional information about Willcocks and the Canadian Volunteers in general. Natty10000 (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a copy here. MER-C 02:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dammit! I hate looking like a newb! :) Thanks for locating that page and I'll use that link for the citation Natty10000 (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

About Wikitest.org Orthoped.org and related domains
I would like to apologize for some of my additions, which were solely for draining traffic from wikipedia. But I would like to cleanup the act if given the opportunity by making the additions as per the ideology quoted in Dirk's Talk page regarding addition of relevant missing content and then quoting the reference. The only factor I would like to quote in my defence, is that the pages, which I had added, did contain exceptional authoritative content regarding Orthopedics for which I hold a diploma and have the ability to provide expert information. As an example, "tennis elbow home test" in the article on Tennis elbow, cozen's test which is properly explained on my referenced page. "Dugas test" an important test which we employ to verify reduction of shoulder dislocation was not even mentioned in Dislocated Shoulder article and so on. So kindly reinclude the URLs which have been blacklisted in bulk and I agree to abide by Wikipedia guidelines. If you want to read some of my quality articles on Orthopedic topics to confirm my authority, you can read my articles on Healthhype.com authored under my name Dr. Gauresh or google search for collarbone pain, leg weakness, neck spasm, pain pill addiction, and so on, which are read and appreciated by 100s of people each day.

59.183.36.222 (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Dr. Gauresh Per WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

www.ispycamping.com
Please can you whitelist www.ispycamping.com. It appears to have been blacklisted because it contains the reference to 'spycam' within the domain name. However, the site is an example of contemporary camping. Thank you Willgoodridge (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ Not on the local blacklsit; on the Meta blacklist. Furthermore, we don't need "example" links on camping articles. Please see WP:EL. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However, according to the spam filter notice I received www.ispycam is on the blacklist. This blacklisted domain has nothing to do with the link I am proposing, but I am still blocked. With regards to the link for ispycamping.com, it is a useful website to illustrate to people what is meant by contemporary camping. It is not article. Thanks for your help.Willgoodridge (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You cannot use Wikipedia to promote your own site, period. Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

www.salsalust.com
I'm the admin of "Salsa Lust" .I want to use the link in external links for Salsa, and Rueda_de_casino, and on the equivalent pages on several other language wikis.

Salsa Lust is a project created by myself and few more salsa experts. Its mission is very similiar to Wikipedia in the salsa scene - To document Salsa's moves & variations and to create a formal standard across the world. Its contribution to the salsa scene across the world can be large and several teachers already use the site at their main source for teaching materials. The site is not used for lucrative purpose (there are couple of ads for the sake of upkeeping costs).

Wikipedia has produced large traffic to the site and allowed it to spread around the world which is not an easy task without it. Actaully without it the project will somewhat lose it's world wide effect which will deal a huge blow. I Believe & know every salsa dancer would appretiate the site as the experts on my country are, and the relvence to salsa is quite bold to anyone who took at least one lesson in salsa. Therefore think that it appropriate to place the link where it is relevent (which I listed above). --Idofle (talk) 12:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A perfect example of how spamming pays ... I am sorry, Idolfe, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of your site. .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, I don't mean disrespect but I do care a lot for the project and the salsa scene and to blacklist it in Wikipedia seems absurd to me as their goals are very much alike, just on a smaller more focused scale. Also there are links with similiar motives on the same page only they lead to commercial sites with no real intent to help the salsa scene as my site is. If what you will call "not spamming and not promoting" is placing the link only on one page as others do then I promise to do only that, and by all means monitor the link. But I Honestly say, that in blacklisting SalsaLust Wikipedia denies support for preservation of knowlege, And I expected a little more concern from it.

If you don't agree with me I would appretiate if you let me know with what other means I can convince you the relevance of the link is bold and for the sake of salsa and not for my website wellfare. If more proffessional opinions on salsa would matter to you, I'd be glad to provide contacts or petition of experts around the world who would support it. --Idofle (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No amount of wikilawyering will get the site removed from the blacklist. It simply does not meet our WP:EL guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the guidlines you provided kind of support a site like mine (which expands the salsa subject and adds tons of proffesinal unbaised information including rich media). The only thing that goes against me is that I own the site mysels and because I posted it, it may seem like a conflict of interest. The guidlines also suggest that in the case I'm the owner I should post the link on the talk page and let other editor decide for himself. Is that acceptable, or do you still insist (last try)? --77.125.107.86 (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No (last answer). OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

www.tempsensindia.com
Please unblock this site... I need to put some reference table for thermocouples on thermocouple page which are very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.4.98 (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ Your spamming of the link is the reason that it's blacklisted. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Examiner.com
I would like to request that only these links be white listed for the Article written on Lion from the Lake. Not the site itself be white listed, unless it may affect the following external links from being used in reference for this article. The root www.examiner.com was blacklisted. These articles contain factual insight in accordance to the article and serve no other outside purpose. These articles are simply to inform and provide the public with information about Lion from the Lake. I am a member of the site, but a first time user.

The links I wish to add: www.examiner.com/arts-entertainment-in-nashville/so-many-are-blind-lion-from-the-lake www.examiner.com/arts-entertainment-in-nashville/new-album-for-lion-from-the-lake www.examiner.com/arts-entertainment-in-nashville/lion-from-the-lake-extends-overseas www.examiner.com/arts-entertainment-in-nashville/lion-from-the-lake-s-upcoming-album www.examiner.com/arts-entertainment-in-nashville/lion-from-the-lake-s-new-single-showcased-to-dr-dre www.examiner.com/arts-entertainment-in-nashville/dinner-and-a-movie-includes-lion-from-the-lake www.examiner.com/arts-entertainment-in-nashville/lion-from-the-lake-is-hitting-the-media www.examiner.com/arts-entertainment-in-nashville/interview-with-lion-from-the-lake www.examiner.com/arts-entertainment-in-nashville/rapping-nashville

I wish to add the links to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Lion_from_the_Lake&action=edit&undoafter=398276579&undo=398294747 Lion from the Lake (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Examiner.com is not a reliable source as it has no editorial control. Additionally, links there may offer financial incentives to the author. Therefore this request is . Additionally, you may have a conflict of interest. And the page you want to add the links to was deleted. And we don't whitelist links for user pages either. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

pubmc.co.cc
I'd like to request to whitelist the site pubmc.co.cc. It seems the root co.cc is blacklisted. I was planning on putting this specific page, which is not involved in any illegal activity, in the external links section of the Miniconomy because it is a popular webpage among players of the game.--ArneLH (talk) 14:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC) this is the same with my personal website where i am developing a BBS: ctflolz.co.cc -- the-removethistext-hai-removetext-ryrock@-removethis-gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.176.71 (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see why this site, or any page on it, should be added to wikipedia per WP:EL. EdBever (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * , can't see how this meets WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

not quite sure what's going on here
I'm trying to save buckle bunny from deletion and the following link


 * http: // www.ehow.com / how_2157628_be-buckle-bunny.html

triggered some sort of spamfilter. What's the next step? Robinh (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ehow.com is not a reliable source, so it shouldn't be cited in the article. If you want to use the link just in the AfD argument, you could paste it somewhat as you have done here, other users can follow the link by copying, pasting, and editing the link in their address bar. (Since its not a reliable source, its probably not particularly useful in the AfD argument, but your call.) Herostratus (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ❌; not for use in an article. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

associatedcontent.com


I would like to whitelist this article because it is were I got my information from when I added information to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alkali_metals. I want to site it as a source.

associatedcontent.com/article/5789330/the_alkali_metals.html?cat=58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.122.113 (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is another site that offers people money. I think it is blacklisted because this kind of site is an open invitation to spammers plus the content might not be seen as a reliable source. EdBever (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As per the page editnotice, we do not generally accept whitelisting requests from unregistered users. Associatedcontent.com offers monetary incentives to users to increase page views, and ultimately, the requester could well be the author of the page and be attempting to drive traffic there. This request may well be considered if and when a trusted, high-volume user resubmits it, but in the meantime, it is . Stifle (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

El Bombin


Please whitelist:
 * www.elbombin.co.cc

The previous url (elbombin.stuarthomfray.co.uk) was deemed acceptable as a WP:EL and after I changed hosting and lost my previous web address, I decided to re-upload my site to elbombin.co.cc. The content is still the same, of course, so links to any of the relevant pages on elbombin.co.cc should be acceptable WP:EL The specific page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Reynolds_%28footballer_born_1881%29 but there may be other related pages on WP that I would need to edit too. --J4ckplug (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Associatedcontent
Caleca (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)The URL of the entire page of wikipedia is (en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Ramirez&action=submit) the link that I'd like to be accepted is (www.associatedcontent.com/article/274976/interview_with_stela_supporter_and.html?cat=38). I think this article very important to Richard Ramirez's biography on Wikipedia.Caleca (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Associatedcontent.com is not considered a reliable source and offers monetary incentives to authors to increase page views. As such, this request is, but should the request be resubmitted by an editor with some months of editing history, it could very well be approved. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com


Please whitelist one of these two links:
 * www.examiner.com/printa-560625~Yeas_and_Nays:_Monday,_Feb._12.html?cid=tool-print-top
 * www.examiner.com/a-560625~Yeas_and_Nays__Monday__Feb__12.html

Source is used in Darrell_Issa. Verified in toto by an aggregate of the official government hearing transcript, video, and other RS. It's a concise summary of the controversy as was the original first-reporting source, now a total dead link. Authors Jeff Dufour and Patrick Gavin also write for the Washington Examiner (article), which is not blacklisted. The archive at WaEx doesn't go back to 2007, and is robots.txt excluded. Also they've written numerous articles at BOTH washingtonexaminer.com and Examiner.com (see www.examiner.com/a-560625~Yeas_and_Nays__Monday__Feb__12.html and click the link "SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY."  Each article on Ex links to their email address at WaEx.   --Lexein (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you know when the Washington Examiner article was printed, you can still cite it even if it's not online. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

KOSMOPOLIS and CCCB Official Website


www.cccb.org/kosmopolis/en/ hosted in: www.cccb.org/

Kosmopolis is an internationally renowned literature Feast that takes place in Barcelona. I was browsing in the cathegory "Literature Festivals" in Europe and it is not in the list. The non-profit institution that organizes the festival, "CCCB", is in the blacklist of Wikipedia and I can't add the Kosmopolis link in the International Literature Festivals cathegory of Wikipedia. Please, could you remove the CCCB institution and Kosmopolis (hosted in its web-site) of the blacklist?. None of the both have commercial purposes, as CCCB has an educational aim, being one of the most important cultural catalan institutions. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicia kopf (talk • contribs) 12:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The CCCB website is blacklisted because an editor was paid by them to introduce copyright-violating spam for topics including Kosmopolis. I have good reason to believe that this user is also involved directly with Kosmopolis, so I would oppose whitelisting at the request of an organization that spammed us. It's also not clear where this link would be used. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * , may be reconsidered on the request of an established editor. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Key document in Multilateral Agreement on Investment
I request an exception for a (www.oocities) page presenting The Lalumière Report in English] which is a crucial document preceding and explaining the failure of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in 1998. Without this document, it is impossible to understand why the host nation France withdrew from the MAI, followed by all other OECD nations. There seems to be no other online source. The bot-substitued URL is a dead link. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * http://webcitation.org/5knuYvqH2 should work, though WebCite sometimes has performance issues. I believe the Wayback Machine also has a copy, but I've been getting errors from them when I tried to search. As such, I would oppose whitelisting the OOCities page, given the trouble we've has with them. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * per Gavia immer. MER-C 10:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/conservative-in-raleigh/army-refuses-soldier-chance-to-clear-his-name
I want to use the link on Murder of Muhamad Husain Kadir, and possibly on User:Geo Swan/look/Jeffrey Waruch, a userspace page I am considering bringing back to DRV. The link itself doesn't look like spam, and I am curious as to why this site is blacklisted. Geo Swan (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I see that User:Stifle has turned down several other requests, stating examiner.com is a site with no editorial control, and that the authors are paid.  Payment of authors is traditional for authors of magazine and newspaper articles, so I do not think this is a valid justification for being blacklisted.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue is not the payment, it is the overall spam issue. Anyone sufficiently interested can sign up as a contributor and create an article on examiner.com. The writer is paid if they can drive traffic to the page, so a common tactic is to spam it into Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No, Geo Swan, the point is not that the editors are paid to write the articles, the issues is that editors can write articles, and get paid when someone is actually following a link to their document (similar to referral links). Anyone, literally anyone, can write a text there, link it from whereever they can, and see the income on their bank account. That is distinctively different from a paid professional, working for an organisation, and other people adding his links here.

The site was blacklisted for editors doing just that, spamming their documents for getting the revenue. Also the owners of the site were spamming the site. Moreover, the site is notoriously unreliable, the data is very often available elsewhere (i.e. the data is scraped - and the data were it was scraped from is often a reliable site), and the site owners are deliberately trying to confuse their sites with news-sites with similar names which are good and reliable sites. There have even been whitelist requests on this type of sites (pay-per-view-type of sites) where the requester was actually stating that they needed to link here, because they needed the income from the site. Also note: a lot of spam does not look like spam, spam is the intention of making money with linking to your site, or promoting your site, which, unfortunately, even happens with the best sites .. SEO is a big business.

That being said, there certainly is good information available on the site, certain documents (even when created with the idea of getting money when people were reading it) are good sources, from serious writers (there are professionals there), and when uninvolved editors ask for whitelisting that specific document, that may very well be granted (and some examiner.com pages are whitelisted). Though in reviewing one should keep in mind that the information will be available elsewhere from more reliable sites.

So that is basically what Stifle asks, and what I will ask as well. Is this information not available elsewhere, and do you consider this information reliable? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/native-american-community-in-oklahoma-city/a-native-take-on-terrorism-the-towers-and-tolerance
I want to use the link in a citation for Christianity and colonialism. Richard S (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Similar to above, is this information not available elsewhere, and do you consider this specific document a reliable source? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

gcaptain.com


Please whitelist gcaptain.com/maritime/blog/lethal-approach-pirate-defense?13402. G captain is a maritime blog that is quite well known in shipping circles and it's blocking is odd. Anyway, this reference is relevant since the weapon in question was been identified as being in the top 10 for Pirate defense. It is a reference for this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TBL-37 Jesus ... it is blocking this entry. Bug or what??? Incitatus (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Incitatus
 * Blacklisted due to coi-spamming. It is a blog, which does not make it likely that it is a reliable source.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ❌ Stifle (talk) 10:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

suite101.com article
I would like to use the article at www.suite101.com/content/how-does-adrenaline-work-a193973 as a source for the new article I am working on here. It has exactly the type of information I am looking for (how adrenaline effects the body on a cellular level), and since this article is sourced itself, I think that it can be used as a reliable source. I'm not asking for the whole site to be whitelisted, just this specific article. --WikiDonn (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Suite101.com articles:
 * Are self-published with limited to no editorial oversight, thereby failing WP:RS
 * Gain financial incentives for the author to increase pageviews, failing WP:COI
 * If the article itself cites reliable sources, please cite those directly. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Another examiner.com page


I want to cite www.examiner.com/sci-fi-in-orlando/transformers-convention-coming-to-disney-s-dolphin-resort-botcon-june-24-27 as a reference for the article on BotCon since that article needs more third-party sources. Why is "The Examiner" blocked anyway? NotARealWord (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No specific comment on this specific link - examiner.com was abused and spammed (amongs others by site-owners), as it is a pay-per-view-site (you can sign up, start writing documents there, and when you link your documents and people follow the link, you get paid - basically, the more people you tunnel to your document, the more you earn), the site is a huge spam-risk (and de-listings have been requested for the reason of making money ..), moreover, the nature makes it generally a unreliable site, and since anyone can write and earn money there, risks of scraped info &c. are also large. Regarding whitelisting requests, one would need to ask, a) is the information reliable enough, and b) is it not available elsewhere from a (more) reliable site?  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Resources.InfoSecInstitute.com


We've been working very hard at providing in-depth valuable material to industry professionals in our field via the site at Resources.InfoSecInstitute.com. One of our 10k word articles - a step-by-step guide to reverse engineering a specific malware - was featured on many national news sites and many of the "A-list" bloggers in Information Security. A recent 8,500 word article is by far the most complete "fuzzing" demo available to the public for free. I'm not sure why our main domain is banned, but I would at least like to be able to provide these free resources to the wikipedia audience since I think it really does qualify as a legitimate value-add resource. Thanks.
 * This was blacklisted for spamming; the normal practice is that specific named URLs are whitelisted when a trusted, high-volume editor requests it in order to use it in a Wikipedia article. See also WP:ELNO item 1. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

youtu.be


There is no point at all in blacklisting youtu.be because youtu.be/XYZ is just a short form of the allowed URLs youtube.com/watch?v=XYZ and can't be used for anything at all other than such links to YouTube videos. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While I generally agree with you, there's no point in whitelisting it, either, since you can just use the long URL without any problems. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? I understand the length of the blacklist is limited by software constraints. It seems silly to waste a slot. Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Link is on the global blacklist. Reason for this is that it can be used to circumvent any restrictions on youtube, just like URL shorteners etc. You can use the youtube.com link, so no reason to whitelist. EdBever (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * . Stifle (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

mapsofthe world
France–Monaco relations needs info cited from this page (with other relevant/similar info also cited), there is no reason to believe information is falsified or it is being spammed, primarily because of the individual initiative on this. (part of which is that im expanding many such similar articles). While 1 cite can be found elsewhere, the second cite is a little harder to find concurrently.(Lihaas (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)).


 * Sorry, but looking at that page, I see many, many ads, a series of grammatical errors, and no indication where the material is sourced from. It does not appear to meet the requirements for a reference source. --Ckatz chatspy  20:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick repyl anyhow.Lihaas (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC),
 * ❌ Stifle (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

petitioXns.number10.gov.uk
I tried to link to this page http://petitioXns.number10.gov.uk/ for an edit to the internet petitions article and met with a spam block. Can the whole UK Prime Minister's website please be unspam-blocked. Can't really explain why, but just kind of seems worthwhile, thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax 05:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment (delete the X from the URL, blacklist doesn't allow me placing this request otherwise. This request is transferred from the global blacklist talk page on meta. This link or the term petitions is not blacklisted globally. I think it is because of the locally blacklisted regex \bpetition(?:online|s)?\b) here on en:wp. The request seems reasonable IMHO. EdBever (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's blocked because Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and we've had plenty of attempts by people to use Wikipedia to try and publicize their cause, about which they have just such a petition. As such this request is . Stifle (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

petitiononlime.com/gusano03
I am requesting that Wikipedia approves the link shown because is a central point in the information about the documentary "X rays of a lie" where I am the autrhor. This link is important because is the only external link I can submit about the meeting that was the base of the documentary. The link shows the text that `describe the event, the date and the 11901 signatures that approve that petition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wschalks (talk • contribs) 23:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the fact that 11,901 people signed the petition is important, it will be documented in a reliable source somewhere, and you should cite that source. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Revisit
Stile, it is mentioned by the Guardian; what should I do now? Can I say anything else about the petition other than what The Guardian says? Is its use as a primary source in any way acceptable? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The petition was circulated by Gusanodeluz.com; here is their About us page from archive.org. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The norm is to link to the Guardian article rather than to the petition. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

examiner.com
Please whitelist www.examiner.com/crime-in-newark/national-children-s-advocate-parry-aftab-of-bergen-county-honored-by-fbi

The ref is needed on the Parry Aftab page. The Aftab page has a subsection on Honors she has received. She has received another, I would like to add it, and I would like to use the whitelist-requested page as a RS. It is entitled, "National Children's Advocate Parry Aftab of Bergen County Honored by FBI".

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I confirm this info is accurate with an FBI link: http://newark.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel10/nk112210.htm but still would like both links just in case, so no rush, and no tears if you don't whitelist it. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * How about ? MER-C 06:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Good. Thanks.  I hereby withdraw my request. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)