MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/07

bit.ly
Now hold off on the decline! I am asking for something like is done on the TinyURL page for the bit.ly homepage. Currently, bit.ly cites technical restrictions for why it doesn't have a direct link, and this has been discussed on the talk page with arguments for and against a direct link. TinyURL *does* have a link (from the sidebar) that was previously blocked but has been successfully whitelisted in the past. So there aren't actually any technical problems that would prevent a direct link to the bit.ly homepage, which I feel is necessary for the same reason we have a link to the TinyURL homepage. I have read the archives and they don't take into account the TinyURL whitelisting (seen here).--Tim Thomason 01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Lets try,, for use in the bit.ly article only! please use the the exact format of  , variations of this will not work. Thanks for the well stated request. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the approval, and the compliment on my request. I had a bit o' trouble at first, because I kept forgetting the "www", but it's since gone through and the page is fine now.--Tim Thomason —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC).

unblock request - food business review
Hi, I'm trying to edit the Cold Rock Ice Creamery article and want to use (pdf), seems to be a product brocure? Not sure how that is useful in establishing its location (which others on the list do) in article List of semiconductor fabrication plants. Perhaps a more apropriate source could be;
 * http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MN&p_theme=mn&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EFE423002CF438A&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
 * From the Star Tribune published Published on April 17, 1991 stating "Cypress Semiconductor, the California firm that bought Control Data's money-losing computer chip plant in Bloomington in January...".
 * Seems all the relevent info is there. --Hu12 (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Or this, from the Austin American-Statesman (January 7, 1991). or another from the Star Tribune, Published on January 2, 1991.... Seems theres plenty of reasonable alternatives availiable--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In view of these facts: ...I see no compelling reason to whitelist this link. Therefore this request is unless a compelling reason to whitelist is presented. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a promotion channel, and the requested link is a marketing brochure that appears to summarize multiple pages that were spammed in the past,
 * The Cypress Semiconductor article already includes a link to the company home page,
 * Alternative reliable sources exist for the purpose of establishing facts about the company in the context of List of Semiconductor Fabrication Plants,
 * Codepro has not provided a rationale for whitelisting other than a desire to include the link,

www.bestessayhelp.com/how-to-write-a-dissertation-in-a-month
Could you please unblock this page, it is a graphic timeline guide and I am sure it can be a great addition to external links on Dissertation article. Thanks! — ClarissaSheary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC).


 * The chart serves only to advertise an essay mill. . MER-C 08:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Why so? The page has absolutely different layout, and there is no advertisement - only a pure information on how to write a dissertation, in the details. It serves to be a guide and only.--ClarissaSheary (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? I couldn't help but notice the large www.bestessayhelp.com at the bottom. Linking to essay mills brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Oh, and:


 * We do not whitelist domains at the request of their owners. MER-C 08:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

cl58services.co.cc
This is a personal website of mine (not linked to before on Wikipedia - to my knowledge at least). I presume it is the co.cc that has been blocked, but I would like to add a link to the site on my User Page. Please allow cl58services.co.cc. If it is not possible to unblock the whole domain, please whitelist support.cl58services.co.cc/ (If you need a specific page, that is support.cl58services.co.cc/index.php). I understand that the link would not improve any article, but I would like my User Page to have a link to the site. Thanks. -- Chris  5858  19:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * , requested link is not for use in the encyclopedia. You can use the link on your userpage in the same manner as used here. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/airlines-airport-in-national/a-forgotten-hero-from-world-war-ii
Could you please unblock this article. I am in process about writing an article about the story, and this source provides the most complete information. Here is the link to the article I am working on in my user space Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

thebrowser.com/interviews/scott-soames-on-philosophy-language
To be used on the wikipedia bio pages for Noam Chomsky, David Kaplan, Saul Kripke, and Nathan Salmon.

It is difficult to imagine why the page is blacklisted. It consists of five carefully considered book recommendations for a literary website, TheBrowser.com, made by a reliable and very prominent contemporary philosopher--a distinguished professor at USC, a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, and much more. This is not spam by any reasonable criterion.

~nsalmon (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)nsalmon


 * Yes, it is spam if the behavior of editors suggest a massive attempt at placing links on Wikipedia. The domains thebrowser.com, five-books.com, and fivebooks.com were blacklisted just recently due to spamming or promotion. See Special:Contributions/Anon111 and Special:Contributions/Julia.terentyeva. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Amatulić: Your links provide little evidence supporting your accusation that the editors at TheBrowser.com have engaged in a "massive attempt at placing links on Wikipedia." Are the two users you cite editors at TheBrowser.com? Is there evidence there that Julia.terentyeva has engaged in a massive attempt at spamming Wikipedia? Even if the editors at TheBrowser.com are spammers, as you contend, it does not follow that every webpage they edit is spam. I repeat a straightforward observation, which I take to be beyond reasonable dispute (at least among those with expertise on the subject): By any reasonable criterion, the particular webpage under consideration for whitelisting here is not spam. Far from it. Summarily deleting all references to any webpage under the TheBrowser.com domain, even if that webpage is well-informed and informative, simply because it is under their domain (and because it is believed that someone associated with that domain spammed Wikipedia), is excessively heavy-handed. It amounts to suppression of information. ~nsalmon


 * Note that the "Julia" account served only to add links to the site in question. Shortly after being warned with regard to this problem, the account ceased activity and a new account (Anon111) was created to do essentially the same thing. Note also that Julia Terentyeva has a LinkedIn account that lists her position as a "digital marketing assistant" and "marketing associate" for the site. She is described as an "office manager" on the site itself. --Ckatz chatspy  05:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ckatz: Thank you for the info about Julia's activity and your interpretation of it. As I have said, the suspected fact that someone associated with TheBrowser.com attempted to spam Wilipedia does not justify summarily suppressing any mention of the website and/or of every webpage that comes under its banner. Amatulić's assertion is simply mistaken that any and every webpage under a domain, one editor of which is suspected of attempting to spam Wikipedia, is ipso facto itself spam. Such a criterion is indefensible and does a serious disservice to Wikipedia users/readers. Let all genuinely *spammed* links to TheBrowser.com webpages and to TheBrowser.com website itself be banished from Wikipedia. It is inappropriate, however, to condemn one user's suspected misbehavior by suppressing information and thereby depriving or underinforming Wikipedia users/readers. One express purpose of this whitelist page is to reconsider, on a case-by-case basis, particular non-spam webpages under a banned domain. If a particular Browser.com webpage is not spam, and contains noteworthy information, then that particular webpage should be whitelisted. ~nsalmon


 * Hmm, NSalmon, I know that the database of linkadditions is partially down .. but much of the data is still available. From that, I do not find many additions of thebrowser.com articles by other users than the (many) additions by Julia.terentyeva (of course, if you can show me many other additions that I now miss, that is fine).  But reverting those edits by Julia.terentyeva has likely removed practically all use of the site on Wikipedia.  Blacklisting a site which gets spammed (using multiple accounts or rapidly changing IPs) and where other use is not evident is one of the least disruptive ways of stopping the spam.  I would suggest, that when editors with a firm knowledge of our policies and guidelines come to ask for the de-listing of thebrowser.com, that those requests are likely granted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you to Dirk Beetstra for that encouraging response. (Although I wonder why it should be that summarily banning all references to a site is somehow less "dispruptive" than merely reverting all of the editors' suspected edits.) In the meantime, I would ask that Wikipedia administrators decide this request for the whitelisting of one specific webpage, no link to which was spammed on Wikipedia (as far as I know) and which is itself noteworthy and legitimate. ~nsalmon


 * Not much to wonder, NSalmon. If the only 'use' of the link is by the spammers who add their links, then there is no disruption in preventing other users (eh .. there were none?) to add the link, while it stops the disruption of the additions by the spammers.  Then we also do not have to revert all the suspected edits, and that is exactly the goal of the spam-blacklist ...
 * You're right, a knowledgeable admin on this site should consider whether whitelisting this one document is appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again to Dirk Beetstra. I have moved this entire discussion exchange to the correct location on the whitelist page. ~nsalmon


 * Nsalmon, all of your edits in 2011 have been to argue for the inclusion of this link. However, I do not recall seeing you actually post a rationale for why the link is necessary. Could you please explain how you see the addition of this link as benefiting the articles in question? (Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory service, and we do not add links simply because they exist.) --Ckatz chatspy  17:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * @Ckatz: You have removed not only links to the document in question, but also mere mention of the document WITH NO LINK WHATSOEVER. The only justification you have offered for your heavy-handed censorship is that you believe that someone associated with the document’s domain has spammed Wikipedia. I have posed a legitimate challenge to your censorship. I believe your response is inappropriately defensive. (For example, your remark that “all of your edits in 2011 have been to argue for the inclusion of this link" is just plain wrong. Furthermore, it is plainly irrelevant.)
 * As I have said, TheBrowser.com is a legitimate literary website (which as far as I know does not sell books--I have no connection to or association with TheBrowser.com). FiveBooks.com is under the Browser domain. It asks highly distinguished leaders in academic fields to rank the best five books in the field. It is noteworthy fact about an author that one of their books has been ranked among the top five by an undisputed leader in the field. Merely citing this fact is not a way to misuse Wikipedia as “a directory service”--any more than merely citing the fact that someone has won a prize (with or without a link) is a way of using Wikipedia as a service to direct readers to the agency that awards the prize. On the contrary, suppressing this information is a serious and indefensible disservice to Wikipedia readers.
 * To repeat, the document under consideration for whitelisting consists of a carefully considered ranking of the best books in a specialized branch of philosophy. The source is an internationally distinguished scholar, philosopher, and linguist, Scott Soames. He is a member of American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a distinguished professor at the University of Southern California, and formerly of Princeton University and Yale University. The fact that these five books have been ranked best in the field by an undisputed expert is noteworthy. The source is reliable. Merely citing the noteworthy fact is not spam, nor is it a misuse of Wikipedia as a directory service. Quite the contrary, suppression of the fact is inappropriate. ~nsalmon


 * The mention you refer to - if I'm recalling the correct edit - was a clear attempt to include a mention of the site without tripping the blacklist filter. As for your claim about contributions, where are the other ones? Your contribution history shows only edits to this page in 2011; your last edits prior to that were in 2009. (For that matter, the vast majority of your edits involve changes to the article about you, which in and of itself represents a conflict of interest.) Furthermore, please refrain from tossing about spurious, misguided, and uncivil claims of "censorship". You do your argument - and yourself - no benefit to bring such a petty and nasty tone to the discussion. --Ckatz chatspy  06:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * NSalmon, it has been made very clear to you why this domain was blacklisted. It was spammed.  It does not even matter whether it was by someone involved with the site or not, it was plainly spammed.  To stop that disruption, the site was blacklisted (one of the major spammers already made a second account, so blocking would likely not have deterred the spam in any form - and there was no other serious use at that time outside of the link on the page - therefore, other solutions were not suitable, while the disruption caused by blacklisting would be minimal (it is never completely avoidable)).  Your edit mentined by Ckatz showed that you even tried to circumvent the spam blacklist, insisting in undiscussed insertion of the link.  Links can be inserted by anyone if there is a proper rationale, links that are blacklisted are NOT to be inserted until one can provide a proper rationale for that insertion.  You are not asked whether you think that blacklisting was appropriate, you are asked for a rationale, explaining why this specific link is a benefit to the article.  It is of no use in that discussion to discuss the rest of the domain or that it is a legitimate website or whatever (that would be suitable for a de-listing request).  So .. why is this page suitable?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

After a week of discussion, I think it's time to close this. I have not participated here other than to answer an initial question about the reason for the blacklisting. I observe the following facts: Conclusion: If a trusted, high-volume editor determines that this interview is worthy of a link on Wikipedia and makes a request to whitelist, we will consider the request, taking into accounts the arguments presented above. Therefore this request should be for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The site was blacklisted due to a clear pattern of spamming behavior on the part of two accounts, with a connection established between one account and a representative of thebrowser.com. That is appropriate grounds for blacklisting regardless of the opinions of parties interested in the site. Wikipedia does not exist to serve as a promotion channel for anyone.
 * The page is being requested to whitelist for use in multiple articles on Wikipedia, not just one.
 * The requested page appears to have slight relevance to the topics of those Wikipedia articles, appearing to be little more than recommendations of books written by certain authors. The fact that the interviewee Scott Soames appears to be a notable professor is interesting but not necessarily a factor in a decision to whitelist.
 * The requester NSalmon appears to have a conflict of interest, as one of the articles where the link would be used is about him, and the page suggests a personal relationship with Scott Soames. Therefore, NSalmon doesn't appear to be in a neutral position for making this request.
 * No rationale has been given for whitelisting the page.

It is unfortunate that Ckatz has chosen to take legitimate challenges to his/her questionable editorial decisions personally, and to go personal in response. This is not about any particular person and their judgments; this is about the availability of noteworthy information at a popular encyclopedic website. Both Ckatz and Dirk Beetstra have wrongly and unfairly accused me of attempting to circumvent the blacklisting process. Arguing a case on this whitelist page is not an attempt to circumvent the blacklist process. I have not "insisted on undiscussed insertion of a link," or anything of the sort. Replacing a link with mere *mention* of one noteworthy document that appears under a blacklisted domain is not an attempt to circumvent the blacklist process. It is certainly not an attempt to insert a challenged link. It *is* an attempt to restore suppressed noteworthy information precisely WITHOUT inserting any link that Wikipedia administrators have deemed objectionable because (they believe) someone associated with the domain in question has spammed Wikipedia. The response by Wikipedia adminsitrators indicates that some of them may be interested in suppressing not only spammed links to a blacklisted domain but also any information involving that domain. Spamming is improper; it is also improper for an administrator to suppress noteworthy information through the "blacklist"/"whitelist" process as a means of punishing spammers. ~nsalmon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsalmon (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 May 2011


 * How does the existence of this link on Wikipedia improve Wikipedia?
 * Accusations of "suppressing noteworthy information" and speculation about administrator motivations are inappropriate, as are speculations of Nsalmon's motivations (see WP:AGF). As for the claim of impropriety about using the blacklist process "as a means of punishing spammers", that is also inappropriate. Once a spammer has disrupted Wikipedia, it becomes abundantly clear that the site conflicts with Wikipedia's goals, so the site is blacklisted. This does no harm. An encyclopedia can function perfectly well without any external links. The ability to link externally is a convenience and a privilege, and in almost all cases the value of content on Wikipedia is not diminished by the omission of any link. Subsequent attempts at giving the spammed site any exposure whatsoever are viewed with suspicion, particularly if those attempts originate from someone with a conflict of interest. Therefore, this request was.
 * Fortunately, thebrowser.com doesn't appear to be one of those pernicious pay-per-click sites like examiner.com. I or any administrator here would be happy to reconsider whitelisting this link if a trusted, high-volume editor could provide a reasonable rationale for whitelisting it. Heck, I'll reconsider even if Nsalmon refrains from further complaints and instead presents a good case on the benefit of having this link and the harm done by omitting it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist is not the Wikipedia complaints department, nor is it intended to help users with their grieving process. Wikipedia requires a collegial atmosphere to function effectively and continued tendentious arguments along with confrontational personal attacks, makes it quite clear that further discussion on this matter is no longer needed or productive. As evidenced above, from multiple impartial administrators, there has been significant disruption, abuse and inappropriate behavior along with breaches of wikipedia policy. and closed--Hu12 (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/cw-network-in-national/america-s-next-top-model-new-all-star-cast-revealed
This page has the list of competitors for the next cycle of America's Next Top Model, and, until another better source becomes available, should be made useable for the Wikipedia article about the show. Here is the link to the page: www.examiner.com/cw-network-in-national/america-s-next-top-model-new-all-star-cast-revealed. I hope I have formatted this request properly.

OLEF641 (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll point out here that WP:CRYSTAL discourages including content that speculates about the future, particularly when the only source found is something like examiner.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * , not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

www.voobly.com
As a member of the staff on voobly.com I can tell you we should not be blacklisted for spam. Other gaming websites similar to ours are allowed to have a wikipedia page to outline the history of website and so should we. Voobly.com is a gaming website that took over a lot of the games from the msn gaming zone when it shut down. We have been around for several years. We have anywhere from 1000 - 3000 players online and playing at any given time. We cannot even post where the game is playable because we are blocked. An example of this is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Ants you will see the last line states "On January 31, 2006, Microsoft's Zone retired Ants because of the lack of players." so any user viewing that page would think the game is done. When in fact it is supported on another website www.voobly.com.

An example of another website like ours on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameRanger Game Ranger has its page posted on several articles of games it supports.

Thanks you for your time.

Some wiki pages that would benefit from this white-list addition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voobly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Ants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires_II:_The_Age_of_Kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires_II:_The_Conquerors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midtown_Madness_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six:_Rogue_Spear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six And countless others - +dAwGy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.227.182 (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I get a strong sense of deja vu from this request: MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/09. . MER-C 05:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So if that's the case please blacklist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameRanger as it "does not bring any benefit to Wikipedia". Not fair to allow one gaming website to have a wikipedia page and not another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.227.182 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 27 May 2011
 * Please make blacklisting requests at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, but I would pre-warn you that requests based on "but [other site] is included" are not normally considered, as no two sites are exactly alike. And for the record, gameranger.com is linked from only two other articles. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello...


Can someone please unblock the http://person/id-29224/Sean+Masterson page please. I need it to complete the Sean Masterson page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babelcolour5 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This link does not exist, it is a 404. Can you give the exact link you want to use, leaving off the 'http://' at the beginning (that will allow you to save this page).  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry here's the link www.tvrage.com/person/id-29224/Sean+Masterson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babelcolour5 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally, we avoid links to TV Rage. --Ckatz chatspy  06:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ❌, not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

www.getzclubuk.freeforums.org
I feel i should be able to add this link to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Getz as i feel it could benifit your users as it is on topic, could help visitors with problems or just for people to share a common interest. The forum is non profit and free to join. Thankyou Ive been a member for years but forgot my password for my old account. --Lukeecfc (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Getz
 * ❌ Forums are rarely appropriate links for Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

bahrainrights.hopto.org/en/node/3864
I am trying to update 2011 Bahraini protests and used the above link as a source but it appears to be blocked and a blacklisted site.Hope you can allow this site or whitelist it. It is in fact a Human Rights site but it is another link to the official one because the official Bahrain Human Rights site is blocked so we bahrainis can't use it.It is actually a very important source because it is a reliable one. Manaf Ali (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very old item on the meta blacklist, hardly ever requested. Bit curious, but I found seemingly the same content on http://www.bahrainrights.org/en, maybe that is useful?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

well that's what i said"It is in fact a Human Rights site but it is another link to the official one because the official Bahrain Human Rights site (http://www.bahrainrights.org/en) is blocked so we bahrainis can't use it." Manaf Ali (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a redirector/URL shortener. We don't normally allow these. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Stifle (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

www.shamsundersharma.co.cc


This is for a free lancer economist and i feel it should be be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoshiarpur as it should benefit to meet the economist for betterment of the nation. Regards.

Vivek — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsharman (talk • contribs)
 * Um... say again? Stifle (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Site seems to be a static page. all links contained on it appear to lead outside the shamsundersharma.co.cc domain, notably to shamsundersharma.blogspot.com. Appears Vivek Sharma owns shirazregency.com, which was COI added here and here.--Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No response + incomprehensible response + WP:COI =>. MER-C 08:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

www.justbie.com/patricia-pattie-lynn-mallette/534/
I edited this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Less_Lonely_Girl but there was error from website I insert. I want to edit about pattie mallete, justin bieber's mother. Another Justin Bieber fans like me need to know who is Justin Bieber's mother, her biography and another else. I have searched in a few of search engine and get this website. — Okychan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC).
 * The link loaded then attempted to portal or redirect... what i saw prior to malicious code execution, fails wikipedias specific requirements of the External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

youtu.be/W3eoZmpiNS0
I've written an article on the Civic, Christchurch, a Category II heritage building damaged in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake and about to be demolished. I intended to link to the YouTube video on the talk page, as it shows backstage footage, including an old vault. The purpose is to record these parts of this historic building that few people would have ever seen, and that is just about to be knocked over.  Schwede 66  19:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please use the full URL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3eoZmpiNS0 . MER-C 03:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Please allow: youtu.be/_TVQpxkN30o This is to be used for "gland excision" link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynecomastia, found under the category of treatment. The readers who wish to view a specific treatment, relevant to the section and the subject matter of gynecomastia, will be able to do so, should this link be permitted. Thank you. DACDacopeland (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please use the full URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TVQpxkN30o. . MER-C 04:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/ cse/home?cx=012474945078376839224:7balhzuvll8
I'd like to get this link whitelisted for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels, as I'd wish to alert them about the search engine, and ask if they know any other reliable sources so it can become even more useful. The custom search engine basically searches through the websites for The Guardian, The Times, Salon, The New York Times, The Independent, CNN and Entertainment Weekly. While not perfect, it should make reviews on books and the like easier to find. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * , internal use only, just give the link without the http on the project page. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

rochestergarden.co.cc
I request that you unblock rochestergarden.co.cc. I understand that many people may abuse the co.cc domain, but Rochester Community Garden uses it as a way to get a free domain for a volunteer organization. If you look at our site, it is all about our community garden, and has absolutely nothing that could be considered spam or anything else that is harmful. We would like to link this article to the Rochester Community Garden page in Wikipedia. Thank you. Gpgardener (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a Rochester Community Garden page. If you were planning on creating one, you'd need to indicate how it meets our notability guidelines. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Gpgardener (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)I did create the page and saved it and it said it was accepted after I removed the rochestergarden.co.cc link, but now it appears to be gone. I created it again. It looks like it is there.
 * Just use the non-redirected version, http://www.thegreatest-love.com/rochestergarden/, which isn't blocked. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Stifle (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/c se/home?cx=010426977372765398405:wxgrrvga3na&hl=en
Previously, I created a Reliable Sources Search Engine which was white listed back in November 2010. An editor at WikiProject Film has requested that I create a similar custom search engine but only for the sources listed at WP:FILMRES. I would like this search engine to be white listed. Just to be clear, I don't want to use this in any article, just article talk pages and project pages and project talk. Basically, the same whitelisting that was already done for my Reliable Source Search Engine. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why I was not willing to approve the CSE last time out, because there will now be a pile of similar requests. Can you not just put www.google.com/cse/home?cx=010426977372765398405:wxgrrvga3na&hl=en (which won't be blocked) on the talk/wikipedia/wikipedia talk pages? Stifle (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my request. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

www.charlierose.com
This is a PBS in-depth interview show, the most respected on TV. Some External link templates use it. Some BOT put it on the blacklist with zero human checking. Brilliant. Obviously it should be removed, so I posted there - and NOTHING has been done so far. Since the instructions are incredibly unclear, I'm now posting here as well. In the meantime, I can't update any of the templates for members of Congress without DELETING this field, which would be counter-productive. Yes, I am furious about this. Am I supposed to list Glenn Beck 'chalkboard talks' instead? I don't see him on the blacklist. Flatterworld (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide the exact link you want to have whitelisted? Stifle (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WWW.CHARLIEROSE.COM - clue: it's in the heading. (I can't wait until this debacle hits the blogs.) Flatterworld (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No need for the attitude; when I posted the question the header said charlierose.com, and the line below said ibanez.co.jp, which was not at all clear. Additionally, this whitelist page is normally used for requesting delisting of one or a few specific links rather than a full site. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm .. for delisting.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delisted. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

lulu.com



 * I'd like to cite a self-published book available only on this website. It contains extensive OpenSceneGraph usage statistics, history, anf API feature information. I understand this might look like self-promotion because I am the author of the book, but note that PDF downloads of the book are free; I receive no royalties for those. The article is currently quite skimpy and I'd like to add some meat to it. Whitelisting this book is pretty much the only way I can add references with my edits. Alternately, I can cite the book without the URL, if you all think that's best.
 * Specific link: www.lulu.com/product/file-download/openscenegraph-quick-start-guide/1144915?
 * PaulMartz (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this request. Now I see why whitelist requests are often denied for new users like me. I have no clue what I'm doing. After digging in to the appropriate way to add a citation, I see a link to the book's web site isn't necessary. Also, I personally feel that even the *appearance* of a conflict of interest should probably be avoided, so I will not be citing my own book (even if it's the only reference available). Thanks, hope I didn't waste too much of your time. PaulMartz (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Withdrawal noted. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The Kinetix
Hello, I have posted an Examiner article that was deemed "blacklist" material, but I am requesting that the Examiner article referencing The Kinetix be allowed on a one time basis. Thanks. BandTogetherAgain (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please give the exact link you want to use (omit the "http://" at the beginning). MER-C 04:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been deleted. as moot. MER-C 12:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org
Delisted at meta, removal, log. Multiple whitelistings, no longer needed. (not reblock) --Abd (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And since your first action thereafter was to link to a copyright violation from that site, I will now have to go and blacklist it again. Well done. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind on the removal request, for the moment, JzG just unilaterally, without prior discussion, blacklisted the site, and this might impact whitelisted pages. --Abd (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have not added links to lenr-canr.org since the delisting at meta. JzG has misidentified my listing of a series of already-whitelisted links, on an article talk page, for possible use as convenience copies, and all those pages had been approved by an admin as showing no reason to not use them, no apparent copyvio. The issue was considered, the copyvio argument rejected. --Abd (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We do not have the concept of "convenience" as a counter to WP:C and we do not have a concept of "permission" from admins to link copyright violations. I believe all this has been explained to you before. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)