MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/04

White List Request for ensenada.com
Please white list this external link for Ensenada Baja Mexico. A person that was working with us was not responsible in posting previously. Ensenada.com offers local and tourist information in English and Spanish for the city of Ensenada Baja Mexico. We will also be contributing information via articles as well. Thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebajabum (talk • contribs) 17:29, 23 January 2013‎
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/08
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jun_1
 * SOCK request . Repeated requests by a COI spa account,, involved in original abuse..--Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * SOCK request . Repeated requests by a COI spa account,, involved in original abuse..--Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * SOCK request . Repeated requests by a COI spa account,, involved in original abuse..--Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * SOCK request . Repeated requests by a COI spa account,, involved in original abuse..--Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

puneritraveller.com
The links that I would like to add are:
 * web.archive.org/web/20110715132457/ ... www.puneritraveller.com/diveagar.html
 * www.puneritraveller.com/diveagar.html

I have no opinion as to why the site should be whitelisted, nor do I know why it was blacklisted; however this one page is one of the few electronic links that provides any information about Diveagar Beach, and it would help the article to avoid the single source problem. The current page does have a little advertising on it, but it is not excessive and there seems to be no malware present. The archived page has less information, but also no advertising. I have no particular information about the reliability of the site, but the information provided is consistent with the other source, and with photographs, captions and maps of the area. The Diveagar Beach article previously cited this puneritraveller.com page from 24 April 2012‎ until it was removed by the revision of 10:03, 26 October 2012, which substituted (spammed) a hotel advertisment page in its place.

--Bejnar (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a part of a Mass Multi domain related adsense WP:CITESPAM campaign. . The link (AdSense 4745416745431134) in question was added as SEO, just like the others spammed into the article. Seems to be nothing more than a low value Made for adsense disguised as a tourist site. I don't think this link meets either of our External Links or Reliable Sources guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well this page in question might have been made at a target to promote links to in order to increase search engine ranking for the overall site, but it was not created originally as a Made for adsense site, since it had no advertising. See the archived site from 15 July 2011 mentioned above.  I would be just as happy to have just the archived site exempted, which should not lure anyone.  As to reliability, see my comment above.  I suspect that the original travel site either hired someone to promote them, which created the issue you mention, or was taken over by such a person. --Bejnar (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The source code from 15 July 2011 archive contains the Adsense ads (pub-4745416745431134) as does every web snapshot going back to Sept 10, 2010. That positively identifies it as the same site owner and not coincidentally, the same IP range has been spamming them for over 4 years (since the site was created). Its a low value Made for adsense site that has been spammed by the same individual (along with his other seven Made for adsense sites). Sorry.--Hu12 (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com - a music review

 * www.examiner.com/review/bobby-blue-bland-five-star-flashback
 * www.examiner.com/review/bobby-blue-bland-five-star-flashback

Hello,

kindly unblock the E X A M I N E R review for Two Steps from the Blues. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ...--Tomcat (7) 12:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to unblock this review. It is not written by a notable reviewer. Binksternet (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

www.helium.com/items/1352340-kamba-language

 * www.helium.com/items/1352340-kamba-language

Could this link be whitelisted for while, there seems to be a major copyvio on this URL.

Used at: The current workaround was to omit the  part. I tried using the URL shorteners but those were blacklisted too. -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 15:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamba_Vocabulary
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2012_December_16
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamba_People
 * Temporary removal would be good. -- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 15:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to include a functioning link for a WP:CP report. Anyone reviewing it should know enough to be able to copy and paste it. Anomie⚔ 19:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Movie Review Intelligence
I am requesting for Movie Review Intelligence to be whitelisted in its entirety. It is currently on the blacklist because a few years ago, it was a non-prominent website that was solicited in film articles by those involved with the website. Plenty of time has passed, and it appears that the website has gained prominence. I made a request on the blacklist's talk page to remove the website, but declined this request as seen here. I discussed the decline with him on his talk page, and his reasons for declining were WP:ELNO #9 and that the website was not a reliable source. I disagree with these reasons; WP:ELNO #9 does not apply because MRI is a staffed website like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. In addition, I believe that the website can be considered reliable. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are websites that are considered reliable sources to use as either references or external links.

At the time of the blacklisting, Movie Review Intelligence was not prominent enough to be grouped with these. Now, we have the website mentioned with RT and MC at Yahoo! Movie News here, and the Associated Press cites MRI's scores with RT's and MC's as evidenced here and here. I mentioned all this to Hu12 here, and he suggested making a whitelist request. As one of the editors who supported the initial blacklisting, I now think that this website should at the very least be available to include as either a reference or as an external link. The WikiProject Film community can develop a consensus on how to best use this website, as it has done for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (see Review aggregators). I would like for other editors to assess this request. Please let me know if this is not the proper course of action; I am simply disputing the decline of the blacklist removal request. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This page is not the place to request blanket white-listing of an entire site. That's the same as removing it from the blacklist. Removal requests should be there.


 * If you want to request a specific page on that site to be whitelisted, this is the place to do it. I believe that's what Hu12 had in mind when suggesting to post here.


 * I will also point out that a site's prominence is irrelevant to the question of whether the site should remain blacklisted. All that matters is whether the disruption that caused the blacklisting is likely to resume.


 * I have re-opened the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, because I disagree with Hu12's rationale for denying it. Here on this page, I will mark this request as . ~Amatulić (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

statsheet.com


Statsheet is a reputable webstite for sports statistics. Many Wikipedia pages, especially those of athletes or sports teams, would benefit from being able to link to this site generally.

The page for Brad Loesing would benefit from linking to this site, particularly statsheet.com/mcb/players/stats/minutes_avg?season=2011-2012 to show that he was 4th in the nation in minutes per game during the 2011-12 basketball season.

Thanks! RpL2144 (talk) 26 December 2012
 * Excessive abuse by statsheet.com. Would seem there are other reasonable alternatives available.--Hu12 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

encyclopediadramatica.se
This page should be whitelisted because that will benefit the Encyclopedia Dramatica page, since it's the current website where ED is continued on. I'm only want the single page whitelisted. Zakawer (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Does not meet WP:Reliable sources

ezinearticles.com
ezinearticles.com/?The-Rising-Trend-of-Room-Escape-Games-Online&id=3313330

Please unblock. This is a possible reference for escape the room. 75.92.61.32 (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . We can't whitelist something based on the possibility of using it as a reference. You have to show how the link would benefit the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

one specific master's thesis found via google.com



 * 1. The link that you want whitelisted: ===http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CHoQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fupcommons.upc.edu%2Fpfc%2Fbitstream%2F2099.1%2F9652%2F1%2Fmemoria.pdf&ei=YInIUJTXFYPJyAGA_YAQ&usg=AFQjCNGUWrsJXF3wXrgg6EBoYeu9juq-7A&sig2=240C53Jff5roGaTeOPFktQ&bvm=bv.1354675689,d.aWc&cad=rja===
 * 2. The page that you want to use the link on: Miniaturized satellite
 * 3. Explanation of why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper: This article has been tagged for a long period of time for having the key aspects of the classification schema for miniaturized satellites being unsourced.  The size classifications have been controversial, and the existing US Defense industry news source appears insufficient.  So I found a European source, from a university with a well-known aerospace and space studies program, in a 2010 masters' thesis by J. Tristancho with faculty supervisor J. Gutierrez.  Unfortunately, the only source for the masters' thesis was at this particular Google link.
 * NET (from my edit comment that was blocked by the SPAM filter): "would like to add a European source with the same smallsat size classification schema (since this has been a source of contention, it is probably best to have two sources)"
 * 4. I have checked the list at /Common requests, I did not find the site on this list.
 * 5. For reference sake, here is the full citation I had written up for that article claim:
 * I would appreciate help on this from anyone authorized to make such an exception. N2e (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The link given is a redirect. The real URL of this article seems to be upcommons.upc.edu/pfc/bitstream/2099.1/9652/1/memoria.pdf --Noiratsi (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Noiratsi! That was very helpful.  I should have figured that out myself and would have save a LOT of time trying to write up my first-ever request to whitelink a spam link.  N2e (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Therefore, I withdraw the request.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

hubpages.com

 * chuck.hubpages.com/hub/Arizonas-Great-World-War-II-Prisoner-of-War-Escape
 * chuck.hubpages.com/hub/Arizonas-Great-World-War-II-Prisoner-of-War-Escape

I request that just this article ("http://"chuck.hubpages.com/hub/Arizonas-Great-World-War-II-Prisoner-of-War-Escape [Note: I added the quotation marks to the URL so that I could save this message]) be unblocked. It is a very important reference for an article I have just finished (but not published) about the POW escape from Camp Papago Park in 1944. Thank you--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Please ignore this request, I've managed to find alternative references.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ~Amatulić (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

historyandpolicy.org
Sorry, very confused about the system here; would like to add a ref to my article Magistrates' court (England and Wales), and can't see why www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-108.html, or indeed the whole domain, should be blocked? Thanks for your help. Littledogboy (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I found out why, sorry to bother. Now how do I withdraw the request? Like this? Littledogboy (talk) 00:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)