MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/08

Specific Suite 101 page
Can I get this one specific page added to the whitelist? It contains an interview with Vicki Peterson of the Bangles which I'd like to use as a reference for her article. Tabercil (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're a sysop, you don't need to ask :) Stifle (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but I listed it for two reasons... one was to avoid any conflict-of-interest charges. The other is I couldn't locate at the time the instructions on how to do it... (since corrected). I'll go ahead and do it. Tabercil (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

lookchem.com/Chempedia/Chemical-Technology/Inorganic-Chemical-Technology/2986.html


It is the only source I could find for fluorine production for fluorine article, and it's seems to be a RS. Since it's at FAC, and the unique nature of such link, I want it to be whitelisted--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears to be fine. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am supporting this but more general because that I was making Methyl thiocyanate and I needed look chem. The thing is to make it more general for lookchem.   EBE123  talkContribs 13:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

examiner.com/disney-travel-in-national/media-monday-push-disney-s-talking-trash-can
I request a specific page unblock for this specific page, and while I understand that the overarching concern over the vast majority of articles on this website do not meet the WP:N and WP:V policies, this article is overall very well balanced and informative. This specific author has presented information which cannot be found in any other well presented forum aside from very small stub articles, blogs or other informal presentations on the internet. The purpose of this article would be to provide a reference for the Push the Talking Trash Can article. I have no connection to the Examiner or any connection with the author of this material. Simply that it appears to be the best source of online formation pertaining to this subject. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Additional information, I have reviewed the /Common section, and suggest that this information is not commonly found elsewhere, but its experience and information is backed up by both YouTube videos (again, not specific RS), but should be sufficient for this content. This article contains more information than the following source which contains a little more than a stub reference. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed in principle; will be unblocked in a week or so assuming no further negative comments. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/
I request that this page be unblocked so that it can be used to reference information that would improve the article on Gameplay. --Rare Akuma (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I also would request that this page be unblocked. It is needed to reference some specific information that would be useful to add to Cultural differences sections of Role-playing video game and History of role-playing video games. --Rare Akuma (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Combining requests. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't open this to evaluate it due to filtering software at my workplace. That is a bad sign to start with, but I will try to check it from home and see then. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌, article is a blog, fails WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

www.rock-the-jukebox.com/2010/12/nick-santo-of-doo-wop-group-capris-dies.html
Could this page be included in the External Links section of The Capris (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Capris)? This link is among the top results for internet searches on Nick Santo, lead singer of the Capris, and is the top search result on Google for "nick santo dies". Appreciate your consideration. 173.170.160.145 (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nick Santo of Doo Wop Group the Capris Dies
 * Nick Santo of Doo Wop Group the Capris Dies


 * The link was added to the blacklist after a series of edits - many by your IP - to add it to articles. Please read through WP:EL. WP:RS and WP:SPAM to obetter understand why the link is not appropriate. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz chat spy  21:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder why. MER-C 06:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder why. MER-C 06:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Requester provides no rationale as to how Wikipedia benefits from including this link. . MER-C 12:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

tinyurl.com/3f3prqu


This URL redirects to research papers search results in American Physical Society website. It was shortened using tinyurl given that the actual link contains characters that are not compatible with wikipedia's page code. This link is useful in the article regarding Michio Kaku.--LGNR (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not needed. I have fixed the URL in the article (Michio Kaku), and explained on user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌. See also /Common requests. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

travelkashmir.net
Community Service website- I was trying to add a following link travelkashmir.net/Places/Default.aspx under the SRINAGAR page of wiki website when it came up with error message 'Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.'

This is a clean website which has useful information about Srinagar and other tourist place of Kashmir. Tourist or travelers can use this website also to search for important information like travel agents, tour operation, Hotels and Hospitals  in case of emergency as it has a searchable database.

I request administrator to visit the website 'travelkashmir.net' and see for yourself that this website can he useful for lot of people as it has good information and above all this website is for Community Service not for revenue.

Request for removal of tis website from blacklist be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solinaballa (talk • contribs) 06:11, 22 June 2011

$ whois travelkashmir.net Registrant: vKashmir.com Inamul Bashir Tulsi bagh (Solina Balla)
 * We do not perform whitelistings at the request of site owners. Additionally, the site does not meet the guidelines for reliable sources or external links. . MER-C 08:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with you but the text used on this website is taken from the reliable source that is from Jammu & Kashmir Tourism Department.

I dont wont to get into any argument as i respect wiki Guideline. Thanks
 * ❌ Wikipedia is not a travel guide. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

backupurl.com/w9veil
I would like to request that this page be whitelisted for use on the Intersex, Sex and/or Gender Diverse page. It is a backup of a Google cached version of a Mardi Gras event page. Mardi Gras routinely takes down pages for events which have occurred and the only other reference to this event and the specific quote regarding Mish GlitterPony is on a FaceBook page. LadySappho (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)LadySapphoLadySappho (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a URL shortener. These are not generally permitted. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMyhw4i1oWo
This link is the only place where Ombrella Media has publicly uploaded their interview with Martin Page, and I think that the information obtained from the interview, where Martin Page is actually speaking to the interviewer and talking about his life and his music, is appropriate for use with the article, as he talks about "Blessed" and the effect that him playing it had on his mother. As far as I know, there is no better source for information about an artist and his work than from the artist himself. Thank you for your consideration.

LadyCygnet (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This site is not blacklisted, as you have pasted a working link here. Whitelisting is hence not required. MER-C 04:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...however it'll get reverted in articlespace by XLinkbot if added by a new user. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no warning on the user's talk page and no reverts in the page history. The user's been here for four years and has more than 10 edits. MER-C 12:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True. ❌ as it's unnecessary. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

maxval.co.nr
This is my own site. Plz unblck it. --maxval (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * http://maxval.freeweb.hu/ ? . MER-C 12:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

ExtremeSEO

 * 1. The website domain in question now has a Wikipedia page. The inclusion of the URL will help clarify the location and existence of the company for readers (in infobox and as external link). Please note I'm only requesting that the link be whitelisted on the following entry; I doubt the website would have any intrinsic third-party value as a citation/external link for other topics. Thanks! Thecosmic (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 2. Extreme SEO
 * 3.1 www.extreme-seo.net/
 * 3.2


 * Article is up for deletion at Articles for deletion/Extreme SEO. MER-C 13:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * pending the AFD outcome. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Article was deleted => . MER-C 02:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ensenada.com

 * 1. Ensenada.com has become the official GOB website for the promotion of tourism represented by Xavier Rivas who is currently the Chief Adviser for Economic Development for the Mayor of Ensenada. Ensenada.com has unique bi-lingual content that is growing each day and supported by pro tourismo, Secretary of Tourism, the port of Ensenada and Mayor Enrique Pelayo. Black listing this website blocks important content relevant to the City of Ensenada Baja California. Please consider white listing. The admin we had before went over the line to promote.


 * 2. Ensenada,_Baja_California
 * 3.
 * Looks very WP:COIish... Stifle (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to spamming. Would consider whitelisting an index.php type page. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

www.typemock.com


Typemock should be added to the List of mock object frameworks and List of unit testing frameworks as they are popular frameworks for .NET and C++ developers. It's been featured in the software development press (see, for example, http://www.sdtimes.com/TYPEMOCK_LAUNCHES_ISOLATOR___THE_FIRST_C__EASY_UNIT_TESTING_SOLUTION_FOR_GAME_DEVELOPERS/By_SD_TIMES_NEWSWIRE/34995) Saalam123 (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This request page is for one or a few links from an otherwise blocked site to be requested for addition. As the site was blacklisted for spamming I am not prepared to delist it entirely. Please specify which particular links you would like added, as well as a rationale as to how this site meets WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This was specified in the initial request. The sites would be List of mock object frameworks andList of unit testing frameworks. The link would be to [domain]/isolator-product-page and [domain]/isolatorpp-product-page. The activity took place several years ago and I understand that the offenders are no longer associated with the company. The company is well known in the unit testing world and has recently published articles (see /news on their domain) and spoken at several conferences Saalam123 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC).
 * ❌ We don't allow companies to advertise their products on Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems overly harsh. Typemock is a leading example of their industry. (I really expected my link to be blue :- Mark Hurd (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Got a reliable source for that claim? Stifle (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm... 8 pages into a Google search and they're all press releases (oh and references to suggestions bloggers and others will get kickbacks for linking to Typemock). It is a pity because they do seem to have a real presence in the market place. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/cw-network-in-national/florence-and-the-machine-to-be-on-gossip-girl-s-new-episode-panic-roommate


This is the only reliable source I could find that mentions Florence and the Machine's guest appearance in Gossip Girl with details.  Snap Snap  01:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read the /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Examiner.com
I had cited to it for a quote that I used here in the Dave Ross article. Can this be put back in? Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please specify the exact link. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Teal Scott
The page titled Teal Scott is in need of external, 3rd party sources. There are two articles about her which are relevant to the Wiki page on E-zines which is on the black list. I ask that two links be Allowed on to Wikipedia for this purpose...

The-Indigo-to-Lead-Them-All&id=6173535

and

An-Amazing-Story-of-Forgiveness&id=6114669 Which are Both from e-zine articles. I could not include the actual links because this page black listed E-zines as well.

E-zine article has a submission and approval process, which means that it meets the third party publication requirements. Readers would benefit from this information as would the page it's self for notability. I ask Wikipedia to strongly consider these two links Thank You. walkingthewitchWalkingthewitch (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you read the /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

One page on kavkazcenter.com - NEW request


Hello, I just need you to unblock the page htt: / /. com so that I complete the article Yemeni al-Qaeda crackdown. Thank you Avangai, sorry for my English I'm French. :) Yotna (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please specify the exact link you want to use (omit the http:// at the start so it can be pasted here). MER-C 08:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

lyrikline.org
Delisted at meta, removal, log. Multiple whitelistings, no longer needed. (not reblock) --Abd (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

wp space
This is a very low-traffic page, perhaps we should open a process for it in the Wikipedia namespace. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

'This is supposed to be about SPAM'
I don't understand what's going on here. This is supposed to be about SPAM. It's explicitly called Spam-whitelist. But practically all request are denied because they do not fit within WP:RS. This is not the purpose of this page! And besides, WP:RS cannot be enforced by regexps on urls - this is far too complicated. The process by which certain blogging sites are blocked simply discriminates against bloggers with less money, where bloggers who can afford their own domain name can have links to their blogs added with (effectively) no control.

What should happen here that practically all requests should be approved (none of them were spam as far as I could see), while in practice practically all of them are denied, or a discussion issues. These kind of discussions (acceptable vs. unacceptable sources) belong in the relevant pages' talk pages, not here! In short, guys, you should really change your attitude. Uffish (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just found that on WP:EL: the 4th type of link to be considered: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Uffish (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The name of the page is a misnomer. I have sought for a long time to move it to something like "blocked external links" — the purpose of the page is not exclusively to control spam, although it was when it was developed.
 * As one of the main admins keeping things rolling here I can say that I've increased my approval rate substantially lately. The main reason for requests being denied is that the requestor does not reply when the request is challenged, leading to a "not done due to lack of reply". The most requested site is examiner.com, which is a site that publishes almost anything and offers authors payment to increase page views. The potential for misuse if it were not blacklisted or if requests for it were approved on sight is immense.
 * In short, URL blacklisting is never going to be 100% effective; there will always be false positives and false negatives and they are a cost for which the benefit is reducing spam and the like. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Adding to this:
 * You say 'none of them were spam as far as I could see'. Spam is not on what is displayed on the page, it is how it has been added to Wikipedia.  Examiner.com, e.g. has been spammer by site owners, and by examiner.com-editors, who were here only to drive traffic to their own research in order to make money.  Uffish, having people on your site results in money, and hence, Wikipedia is a huge target for spamming - and that is not only by sex/viagra/diploma-mill/drugs-sites, we even have huge international organisations spamming (for more info, see Search engine optimization).  You would be surprised how far editors (spammers) go to get their domains here.  It pays having your links in as many places on the web as possible.


 * Spam was not mentioned as the reason for denial in any of the cases above. And the guys asking the exception were, as far as I could see, not the site owners (or at least not clearly so and it was not claimed). Uffish (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we have to mention it every time we deny a link - the link is on a spam-blacklist, why do you think it was added? Please assume good faith, Uffish.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And adding to it - examiner.com is not only spammed by site owners, also by writers. Again, if new editors come here, we are more reluctant than when established editors come here.  And we get even less reluctant if the established editor comes with a good reason.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If a blog with an own domainname spam is spammed, that may also very well end up on the blacklist. Note that there are quite some blogspot.com links on this blacklist.
 * Yes, the issues belong on the talkpages. The fastest way of getting a link whitelisted is probably to discuss it there where it matters, and if there is consensus on use, come here and point to the consensus.  When leaving out the 'http' you can point to the link, it is only not clickable.
 * 'Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.' .. the point there is 'still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources' - though there are blogs which pass that criterion, you'd be surprised a) how few that are, and b) how many that don't get added.
 * I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me rephrase my objections. Decisions whether a source is reliable or not are content decisions and are taken by CONSENSUS. If you would stumble on a discussion in the talk page of Barak Obama whether some source is reliable or not, you would not dream of saying "I'm an administrator and I say it's not reliable and that's it, the page is blocked". But this is effectively what is happening here. People here are using their administrator power to make content decisions. This is completely against wikipedia spirit. Administrator decisions (blocking, protecting etc.) are only taken IF usual consensus procedures fail and AFTER they have been given a reasonable chance to succeed. But here the administrator says "this is not a reliable source" and us poor editors simply have to obey, because he is the administrator. Uffish (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you miss the point. Links get blacklisted because they get spammed, abused, etc. When such a link is not a reliable source then the decision is just going to be faster (or phrased differently, we would be very reluctant to blacklist a heavily spammed but very reliable source - even though we do encounter such sites being spammed ..). Sites like examiner.com are a HUGE spam risk, and this type of sites get heavily abused, while the general use to Wikipedia is minimal.

Here, we are talking about whitelisting specific links. As an example, there has been a whitelisting request of a specific examiner.com link, where the editor, when asked, said 'well, the only reason I want it whitelisted is because I want to drive traffic to my document and earn the money'. Honest, sure, but exactly the point why we do not whitelist without good reason.

If established editors come here, and ask 'hey, this examiner.com document is a good source for this, and I think it is suitable', then we generally hardly object and whitelist quick (well, more manpower would be nice, but that has always been a problem). If an unestablished editor comes here with 'I need this document on examiner.com', then we ask 'why do you need it, why do you think that this is useful'. Note, a lot of examiner.com documents get declined as there are good alternatives.

We also do not say 'I say that the document is not reliable and that is it', we ask 'why do you think this document is reliable' (as, really, most of it is not) - that is a huge difference. There have been many discussions stating that document on examiner.com are (generally) not reliable.

And no, this is not a content decision. You can write the content, you can discuss the content, you can discuss the content of the document you'd like to link to, you just can't add a working link to it. And if you come here linking to such a discussion with consensus that this is a good source, and then we say 'sorry, not reliable, not done' (and nothing more), then you would be right, that would be a content decision (and I still argue that one can write content and reference it without live links anyway). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding: We ask the editors to consider (and that already before requesting it) - there is no problem for anyone who requests whitelisting here to add to their request 'I think this specific document is a reliable source because ...', it makes live on all sides so much easier, and whitelisting faster. Uffish, most of the very few editors here that handle requests have been around here for some time - as I said earlier, you'd be surprised through what loopholes spammers go to get documents linked, it is how they make money - for examiner.com e.g. we have in the beginning done searches and found proper alternatives, and for much of examiner.com here goes, that if there are no proper alternatives, that the document on examiner.com is likely crap and not reliable. We can't do that for all. Similar goes for the e.g. the .co.cc domain. There have been many whitelist requests for actual redirects, a simple search on internet gives you the original, proper place to link to. We do NOT link to redirect sites, there is no need, and the risk is too big. Now read SEO forums. A common trick to get your links here: become a normal member, do normal edits, get a bit trusted, and then slowly start adding your spamlinks. Very likely that one does not get noticed. I think that asking editors to substantiate their whitelisting request is a little price, which loses hardly anything, for us being pawns in a spam game, where we at a certain point whitelist links to enable editors to spam Wikipedia or to use Wikipedia to earn money. And it is not like that we will deny whitelisting when one reasons why a link is a good source or useful for a page, but 'I need it' is just not enough (and 'I need it' is true both for the established editor ánd for the established spammer ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

wording of instructions on the page
The instructions contain the paragraph:
 * "You will not be notified when your request has been responded to, even if you ask. You should check back here every few days to see if there is any progress on it; in particular, you should check whether administrators have raised any additional queries about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in your request being summarily denied."

I think this is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, but rather an expression of the frequent practice ofWP:BITE. Most people come here in good faith. with a request, and since the time at which they will be answered is not predicable--some discussions are very quick and some are not, anyone who comes in good faith deserve to be notified, and the person to do it is the person making the decision.  DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC) I would be happy to say that no request will be denied for lack of reply unless a response has been outstanding for over a week. How does that sound? Stifle (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to action some requests yourself and notify people when they have been done. Unfortunately as the technical aspects of whitelisting are quite involved, many requests are in fact made in bad faith, and only a few sysops actually do anything here, myself being the most active one by some margin, there is limited capacity for this. I don't mean to be BITEish, but we do have users who come along, register, try to spam a link to their website, get it refused, come here and ask for delisting, then forget about it. We cannot have requests remain open indefinitely.
 * Well, it convinces me that I ought to look here occasionally myself. I sometimes tend to feel that I need to have an extra set of hands and eyes, and I share your frustration about the many Wikipedia processes that get insufficient attention. I feel about responding  to requests here as I do about speedies--a request in good faith is worth an answer, a request in bad faith is worth some strong advice., or warning ,or action.     DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the wording is too biting, and should be softened. However, editors of whom an article they created is discussed on AfD are also not generally notified of the outcome (but only notified of the start of it), etc.
 * What would be good, is if there are additional questions, that then the requester(s) are notified that there are questions (e.g., creating a whitelist-request-response or something), for the rest, I would say that we can reasonably assume that if an editor makes a request for whitelisting, that that editor does have an interest in the result.
 * Regarding not enough eyes to handle this .. that is a general problem on certain parts of Wikipedia (and this is a rather specialised part of it, and it is not a generally popular part). More eyes are certainly wanted, even if they just review and give opinions (for which you do not need to be an admin!) - it makes work for the ones that do the real work easier and would speed up much of the process (Stifle is often marking requests with something like 'seems fine, will do this in a couple of days if no objections come' - a second opinion could there make such decisions faster.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving
It is proposed to relocate this process and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist to Blocked external links in order to reduce the "spam" connotations. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support: Makes sense and clears up a lot of confusion about the name. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This sort of move/rename has been discussed before (here and on Meta) - with consensus leaning well in favor of a rename. The problem is that this is a system page in the MediaWiki namespace. To the best of my knowledge, it isn't possible to move the page out of the MediaWiki namespace and retain the blacklist/whitelist functionality. It is possible to rename it within the MediaWiki namespace, but that requires changes in the software configuration by admins/developers.  -- Versa  geek  00:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. It would have to be MediaWiki talk:Blocked external links then. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The MediaWiki page would stay where it is (pending software changes); just the requests process would move. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)