MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/06

biblewalks.com

 * biblewalks.com/Sites/ElahValleyRomanRoad.html

I would like to add this specific link to the article Highway 38 (Israel) as a reference in the History section. It is my opinion that interested readers will benefit because it provides a map of the area in question and provides firsthand, original photos of Roman milestones supporting the contention that the road was an important route during Roman times. One other specific biblewalks page was whitelisted for the English Wikipedia article, Ketef Hinnom. I believe this request exhibits identical criteria. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This request is eligible for approval. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

examiner.com


I am requesting that this particular interview examiner.com/article/hank-cupcakes-the-interview be whitelisted for the Wikipedia page I am creating for the band Hank & Cupcakes. This Examiner interview is the only one in which the band fully recounts their experience studying in Havana, Cuba in great detail and describes the difficulties they faced living under the totalitarian regime. Thank you! Jessica Savage (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Jessica SavageJessica Savage (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC) (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Jessica SavageJessica Savage (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC) (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Jessica Savage (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is eligible for approval. Stifle (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Cable car guy


This page is the best source I have found for images of historical posters related to a few miniature train companies, including of the Century Flyer. Please whitelist this page, for use as an external link on the National Amusement Devices page: www.cable-car-guy.com/ptrain/html/ptrain_ads.html – SJ + 23:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Caught by �guy\.com, clear case of getting caught unintentionally. This is approved for whitelisting. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

www.stringedinstrumentdatabase.comoj.com/ Stringed Instrument Database


I work on a lot of stringed instrument articles and this is a great resource which makes a good reference but I am not allowed to add it as it seems to be blocked. I'm not sure why. Maybe because it's on a free host? Would it be at all possible to unblock this site? There's nothing spammy about it. Emma dusepo (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This is eligible for approval. Stifle (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Analog Pussy
I am currently trying to improve the wikipedia page on this band, and despite the name, there is nothing pornographic about it. That is their official site, and currently their bandcamp page is listed as their official site, which really makes me OCD. I'm trying to make this is accurate as I can, and I can't do that without listing their official site. Jobbo256 (talk) 23:26, Saturday 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to approve this request but will leave it open for another week or so in case someone posts any reasons why not. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, sorry for the delay. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Horror films custom Google search
I've created http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=006337113803439356310:qmncn5902lc, a "Reliable Sources for horror films" custom search, I'd like to include it at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Reliable_sources_for_horror_films. The custom search points to the websites that Michael curated as reliable; it will help to locate reliable sources for horror film stubs. I'm not affiliated with Google nor any of the linked sites, and the search engine hasn't ads enabled nor any other profit scheme that I'm aware of. Diego (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that a similar customized Google search already exists and is actively used by WikiProject Video games to search for reliable sources about video games (this is what gave me the idea). Diego (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is exactly why I was opposed to permitting any of the custom searches to start with, as once you allow one, you end up pressurized to allow all. I recuse from this discussion as I am not neutral. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose this request? (Other than Stifle, who has recused). Diego (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So what, Stifle? I don't see any problem.  Is there any reason to not allow all of those, except for 'it is a lot of work', even if it are going to be one hundred in the end.  It needs to be vetted, but for the rest this should just be a formality.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (though, I would add that I then would expect that they get used on a official template of a project to use find sources, so it can e.g. be used in AfD's or on talkpages to aid discussion). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyway, . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Two links associated with Porter Stansberry
The article on Porter Stansberry refers to a video that he made which was (according to links) widely viewed, but no URL was given so I looked it up. However, I was unable to give the URL. I think an exception should be made. The URL is www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSIENDVD/PPSIM1AJ/PR and here is the link summary:

.

Also, the article Stansberry & Associates mentions something he wrote, and again, I found the reference but was unable to put the link in. The URL is dailyreckoning.com/why-the-sec-sued-me-and-why-you-should-care but it's better to read the archived version web.archive.org/web/20120707225546/http: //dailyreckoning.com/why-the-sec-sued-me-and-why-you-should-care because the comments are formatted in a better way.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I notice they have their own YouTube channel. Is the video not available there? I hesitate to whitelist that because of the Javascript browser trap that tries to prevent you from leaving that page.


 * As for the second link, see http://www.stansberrysecfraud.com/ - it's an official site and the article exists in its entirety there, as well as lots of relevant legal documents. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've found a Youtube for the first one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI-BIVWlc7A But it's not on his channel. Your link for the second thing is good, but the advantage of the link I gave is that it gives comments which rebut some of his points. The link you gave has no comments at all. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The video is also available here: http://stansberrymedia.s3.amazonaws.com/PSI/EOA/EndOfAmerica_11_30.flv
 * I have the same misgivings about the one-sided nature of the second link I found. I'm inclined to whitelist the one you suggested. The one I found would still be useful for referencing legal documents. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All right. If you can whitelist dailyreckoning.com/why-the-sec-sued-me-and-why-you-should-care I'll take care of the edits. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * to the whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Gymnastics Examiner


Please enable linking to Gymnastics Examiner in references. (url: www.examiner.com/gymnastics-in-national/blythe-lawrence)

The purpose is to build up our Wiki gymnast articles. Male editors of Wiki may not realize but there is significant interest in gymnastics by females (national NBC coverage several times per year). However municipal sports pages don't cover this well. We also get significant traffic on our Wiki gym articles, so bumping their quality is desirable.

Author is a stringer for Seattle Times and has a journalism degree. Tone is professional and quality is high. Majority of articles are straight reporting and any analysis is clearly identifiable and neutral. Author of the GE was given official press passes for last several World and US National championships as well as the 2012 Olympics. She is not promoting a product nor am I promoting her.

TCO (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, my request shows that I did (shows thought). For instance, addressing promotionalism.  I'm requesting to allow this part of Examiner, since not every writer there is the same and since this one is beneficial.  For instance, if Steven Hawking wrote an astronomy Examiner, presumably it would be acceptable for the same reason that we allow blogs by professors (in their area).  Just please take a look at the actual site and the lady's background and make your judgment (I'm not saying she is Hawking).  There's really no question of spamming here.  Maybe there is a question of RS (and I guess de facto the spam list is being used for more than spam control), but even then I really think it is fine (for instance the World Federation treated her as "press").  Take a look and thanks, man.  I'm cool either way.  Just don't make me feel like Oliver Twist asking for more gruel.  ;-) TCO (talk)
 * In that case, this request is considered ✅; now to wait for someone to actually process and add it. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

checkpoint-safety.com
- please whitelist this link and allow citation within Loose wheel nut indicator wikipedia article.

Used to replace the current deadlink on Loose wheel nut indicator page for Checkpoint. Firstly, the current link on the page is dead (links to the previous version of the site), so needs replacing (currently shows a 404 version) with the updated link to clean up the article. Second, there are no reasons for the site to be blacklisted. Third, as the inventor and patent-holder of the concept of 'loose wheel nut indicators', a site reference should be authorised for users to locate more information for readers, written by the concept inventors - the linking site (checkpoint-safety.com) is not a shop, nor is it a site for selling, it is purely an informative site about wheel nut indicators and the resulting problems that can occur, which has multiple other resources which link into the topic.

The whole site should be authorised, however at very least the page containing the first ever product of its kind should be linkable, (checkpoint-safety.com/products/indicators/checkpoint®) since the content within the article relates directly to this product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.212.111 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 10 April 2013‎


 * The site checkpoint-safety.com is not blacklisted on the English Wikipedia or on the meta global blacklist.


 * It appears that this is collateral damage from the blacklist entry �safety\.com�, which would have the effect of blacklisting any site that has "safety.com" as part of its domain name. (The site "safety.com" is blacklisted.)


 * I recall fixing a problem like this once in the past; I will investigate how I did that. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅. Fixed the safety.com blacklist entry so that http://checkpoint-safety.com is no longer blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

shoe-shop.com
Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Basic UK retail site, as per M&S etc
 * 2) Pavers Shoes. Already used there as a reference.
 * 3) www.shoe-shop.com/

, for several reasons: It's an online shop, so nothing there is appropriate for linking; it isn't being used in Pavers Shoes and shouldn't be; we don't have an article on shoe-shop.com, so there's no reason to whitelist anything; and we don't white-list entire domains here anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So why can't I paste it at Pavers Shoes? It's their home page. So you can't buy anything from the M&S website? Do companies have to use their company name as the name of their website? Why not use the "history" page, already used as a ref, as the website link? What's that M&S website if it's not an "entire domain"? What's "appropriate" to link to at the M&S page? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I apologize. When I looked at the site I didn't notice the name. OK, I agree that Pavers Shoes should have a link in the article to its own web site, shoe-shop.com. However, please understand that we can't link the home page, because that would be like white-listing the entire site. We need you to tell us a specific page to whitelist, with a full URL path. I suggest their 'about' page at www.shoe-shop.com/page/about_pavers -- is that acceptable? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You've whitelisted the entire M&S site. What's so different? Where's the "about M&S" page? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? If you're referring to marksandspencer.com, they aren't whitelisted because they aren't blacklisted. shoe-shop.com is blacklisted due to past abusive activity, therefore it requires a whitelist entry to let 1 link through. Entire sites don't get whitelisted once they are on the blacklist, only single pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am talking about this: "please understand that we can't link the home page, because that would be like white-listing the entire site." So there has been "past abusive activity" - you did not mention that before. I had assumed all commercial sites were blacklisted by default. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Good heavens, no. If we listed every commercial site, the blacklist would be so huge that Wikipedia would bog down from checking it every time someone made an edit. Everything on the blacklist was put there because of past disruption to the Wikipedia project.


 * I had assumed that shoe-shop.com was blacklisted, as is nearly always the case when someone comes here to post a whitelisting request.


 * HOWEVER, this may not be the case. It's puzzling.


 * In some cases a site gets blacklisted as 'collateral damage' from another unrelated listing. I suspect this may be the case here. I've been investigating. I don't see shoe-shop.com in the blacklist log file. I checked both the local and global blacklists carefully, and I can't find any record of shoe-shop.com being blacklisted at all. And I don't see a record using wildcards that might match shoe-shop.com either.


 * Please stand by while this is investigated. The fix here may involve more than just a whitelist entry. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's this one: (?:boot|shoe|ugg)[a-z0-9-]*(?:buy|cheap|mall|mart|outlet|shop|store|sale)[a-z0-9-]*\.(?:biz|c[no]|info|u[ks]|hk|jp|org|net) on the meta blacklist. Addition Request Almost certainly collateral damage and fine to whitelist. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All very intriguing. Many thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * �shoe-shop\.com� to whitelist. Thanks for your patience. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

www.dogswar.ru/images/stories/experement/sssr-6.jpg
I want to use the link as an illustration for an entry at the List of Russian weaponry. This is the only online copy of the file. G_PViB (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . If the image is free, upload it here. If not, we shouldn't be using it. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

preqin.com

 * URL: www.preqin.com/docs/reports/Preqin_Special_Report_Hedge_Funds_October_2012.pdf 2012
 * Page: Talk:Hedge fund

Preqin is a research company focused on the alternative assets industry (a.k.a. hedge funds) and I'd like to use one of their reports to support a point about who invests in hedge funds on the Talk page of the article of the same name. Requesting unblock to aid the discussion there and perhaps be considered for inclusion in the article's references. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see the discussion there being hampered by the inability to link that page. Furthermore, I don't see a consensus emerging that this link is even a valid reference for the point you are trying to make. We don't white-list pages to "be considered for inclusion". It's being considered on Talk:Hedge fund right now. This isn't a denial of your request; it's just that I don't see a compelling reason here to white-list, yet.


 * I note that other potential sources like https://www.managedfunds.org/hedge-fund-investors/who-invests/ also reference this source, although it's curious that they don't question where the preqin source got that information. There are other sources that don't reference preqin, such as this Reuters page: http://www.hedgeworld.com/education/index.cgi?page=hedge_fund_basics ~Amatulić (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * , request does not appear to be for an article. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

eHow.com


Can't find in the MoS or at any other source the use of the comma between surname and suffix: eHow says it is optional at www.ehow.com /info_7926882_correct-uses-jr-sr-ii.html. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Suffix (name) covers it, but I would not have found it without eHow & Yahoo! --Pawyilee (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * . eHow.com articles are self-written with zero editorial control, failing WP:RS, and the site pays commission to users based on the number of views. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

petitions.whitehouse.gov
We the People (petitioning system) should have a link to the site described. The word "petitions" is triggering the filter. If it's possible to write the whitelist so it's allowed only on this one article, that would be fine. Jokestress (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We would need something like an index.htm (which can not be used to create all other links) or an about page to whitelist a specific page. Whitelisting the whole domain will allow linking of this site throughout Wikipedia (whitelistings can't be page-specific), and give the general spammy effect that similar petition sites have shown in the past.  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 04:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This request will be declined unless a response is received to the query. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-user-breaks-story-of-petraeus-broadwell-affair-11-months-early
The article I am requesting is from Examiner.com and the page that I would like this to be added to is the talk page for the article on Paula Broadwell. I have noted that this website, Examiner.com, is listed at /Common requests. The reason that I believe it is useful to not and should be included is that it is an article that mentions the Wikipedia article about Paula Broadwell. It is for that reason that I believe it reaches the requirements for it to be included into the section called, "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations," on the talk page since Examiner.com is considered to be a media organization. In addition, I have also noted that since I am not logged in, it will be unlikely that this request will be considered at all along with my request being unusual. I still would like to make the effort to do so before giving up. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to mention that I am still available for any comments and questions available for this request. Super Goku V (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are some issues with some of the details I used in this request on the 3rd, then I would like to again state that I am available to attempt to correct and improve my original request. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If the matter has been mentioned by multiple media organizations, please cite one of those others organizations that is more reliable. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not think that it would be possible to cite another media organization that would say Examiner.com mentioned the article. To be a bit clearer in my request, I am asking if the link could be whitelisted so that it could be place on the talk page as part of the "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" section.  I attempted to do so a while back and was unable to do so in the proper way.  In any case, thank you for giving a reply to this.  :)  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * , request is not for use on an article page. Feel free to use the URL without the http: bit on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

encyclopediadramatica.se/Because_of_my_syndrome


Requested as a reference for the claim that '[she] has been the subject of online bullying' in Lizzie Velasquez. A lot of the article has been backed up by references, but this particular claim has not been yet. The biosubj has also been online bullied by a youtube video 'The Ugliest Woman in the World' which has since been taken down. The fact of her having been bullied in such manner is not a trivial or inconsequential matter, as she has themed a good deal of her public speeches and written work around what that experience has been like and how she has dealt with it. And yes, this particular ED article is somewhat an example of how downright nasty and insensitive said bullying has been.Tramadul (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of much better sources that mention that she's been the subject of bullying. ED does not meet WP:RS guidelines. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

detroitnews.com


I am requesting the whitelisting of one page (news article) from detroitnews.com:
 * Kim Kozlowski, "Ann Arbor-based Domino's Farms wins birth control injunction", The Detroit News, March 15, 2013
 * This is a recent news report providing a referenced source to the Domino Farms owner Tom Monaghan Wikipedia article.Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh .. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130315/POLITICS02/303150376#ixzz2NoLMYhft <- you just linked to it? So no whitelisting needed, apparently. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

dominosfarms.com/features.asp


I am requesting the whitelisting of one page (news article) from detroitnews.com:
 * Domino Farms, "Unique Business Atmosphere".
 * This is a recent news report providing a referenced source to the Domino Farms owner Tom Monaghan Wikipedia article.Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Eh .. http://www.dominosfarms.com/features.asp <-- you just linked to it. Nothing to whitelist here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

AP article on freerepublic.com


I am requesting the whitelisting of one AP news article which is mirrored on freerepublic.com but that I can't find elsewhere: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1485205/posts There are other articles which mention the renaming (so it's a credible copy of the AP article), but I want a source to support the statement at Tbilisi Airport that George Bush Ave goes towards the airport; no others that I see mention that explicitly. (diff) —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 23:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . It is preferable to use the original AP news source, which is here: http://www.apnewsarchive.com/2005/Tbilisi-Officials-Name-Street-After-Bush/id-188837e36fdbe2b14c4d0b615b2e33c5 — so we needn't create an exception for freerepublic.com in the whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the original article; your searching skills are apparently better than mine. —Alex (ASHill &#124; talk &#124; contribs) 23:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

pv-magazine.com


I discovered that this website is blacklisted while editing Toul-Rosières Solar Park article. In particular, I would like to use www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/sonnedix-closes-90-million-financing-on-24-mw-french-pv-project_100008526/ and www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/france--sonnedix-acquires-24-mw-stake-in-115-mw-pv-plant_100007667/ as references. Both are news stories including additional useful information and certainly not intend to be used for spamming and website promotion. As a wider issue with www.pv-magazine.com, I don't knew the exact reasons why this site was blacklisted. However, it industry-specific online publication and as such, an important source of information concerning different solar power projects. Maybe it would be possible to remove this site from the blacklist? This is the second request as the first reqest did not receive any response. Beagel (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why it got blacklisted (massive spamming): MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2011
 * Why it will likely not be removed from the blacklist: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2011
 * Are there alternative sources for the same news? For example, http://www.pv-tech.org/news/sonnedix_acquires_24mw_pv_plant_in_france looks pretty much the same as the first link you propose to whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And the second link you proposed can be substituted with http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2012/07/stake-in-europes-largest-pv-plant-for-sonnedix.html


 * Thank you for the links. This was serious spamming and the blaclisting was justified. However, it happened two years ago and the spammer was blocked, so I don't see any further harm at the moment. The link to the previous discussion says: "If a non-COI editor makes a later request, it could be reconsidered,"  so as non-COI editor I am making the request to unblock pv-magazine.com as a whole. It was correctly stated that pv-magazine.com is one of most important industry trade journal for the photovoltaic industry and as such, it is a great source of information for Wikipedia articles about solar power projects. Therefore, I request to whitelist this site. At the same time, if further violations by promoting this site occurs, I will strongly support adding it back to the blacklist. Beagel (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This page is for white-listing requests of single web pages. If you ask for complete removal over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist you will likely find that, in the opinion of most admins who work there (myself included), that two years is too short a time to trust that disruption will not resume if the site is removed, particularly because there was way more than just one spammer involved.
 * Bear in mind that the importance or quality of the source has no bearing whatsoever on a decision to blacklist. Also, as long as alternative sources can be found for the same referencing purposes (as I posted above), there is no compelling reason to remove it from the blacklist.
 * You are welcome to make the request for removal at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, but be prepared to defend your position that de-listing will do more good than harm.
 * Because alternatives are available for the specific links proposed in this whitelisting request, I am closing it as . ~Amatulić (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Youtube: 6 Cylinder "Beyond Hope"


v=h0SsTy3w4Y0 on youtube is a song mentioned and needed as a cite on Spuzzum, British Columbia where the song is mentioned as part of the folklore about this tiny place.Skookum1 (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Beyond Hope", which is a related bit of British Columbiana, is actually the name of the album, the song is " "If you haven't been to Spuzzum (You ain't been anywhere)."". There used to be a sign in Spuzzum that said "leaving Spuzzum" on both sides; other than the local native reserve, all there ever was there is a gas station and store which burned down several years ago (a few days after my last stop there).  Citing that page has always been problematic and I'm trying to find more; but because the song is mentioned it seems necessary to cite its youtube directly.  There's a joke film (not filmed in Spuzzum) claimed to be set there, called "Beyond Hope" (Hope is the nearby main town, with the joke going that you had left all Hope if you were heading up the Canyon or the Crowsnest Highways or "finally seeing Hope" if you were coming down from the Interior.Skookum1 (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . Nothing to do here. YouTube is not blacklisted. Note that YouTube links need to be "official", that is, if you link to any video that wasn't uploaded by the actual copyright holder, the link will likely be removed from the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Were you by any chance using the shortcut/redirect youtu.be? in that case, please expand the link to its full, as the shortcut/redirect is globally blacklisted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Helium.com
Hi, (sorry for my bad english) but i need this site (helium.com/items/374209-an-overview-of-the-lesser-known-movie-awards-around-the-world) for this page: Stinkers Bad Movie Awards --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * . See /Common requests. Helium.com has no real editorial oversight, and is not considered a reliable source for the purpose of referencing in Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

examiner.com link
This is a web site for a San Francisco Bay Area newspaper. I am not sure why it's on the spam list. I would like to cite it as a source for theater events. I am putting together some pages for a music theater company / theater that has been operating in San Francisco for the last 12 years. Specifically, I would like to use references to an article on this site in Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alcove_Theater and New_Musical_Theater_of_San_Francisco,_Inc. GGolovchinsky (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * . Please read /Common requests.
 * There are many newspapers called "Examiner". The San Francisco Examiner is http://sfexaminer.com (which is not blacklisted). Examiner.com is blacklisted, and will remain so. Again, read /Common requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Relief map
I tried adding this link (asterisks added) www.shaded-relief.com and it was blocked. It's a good map and I'd like to include it in this article List of online map services. I checked the link at Norton Safe Web and it said it was okay. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone unblock this address or give a reason why not. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As per the page instructions, "Please make sure you are making your request in the right section and on the right page. Add your request at the bottom of the proper section. Do not add new requests at the bottom of the page; they won't be seen." Stifle (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . Nothing to do. I see no specific URL being requested for whitelisting here. If it got lost somehow, please re-post. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

ezinearticles.com/?The-History-of-Pest-Control&id=133689
For use in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_control#History

This is the only article where I can find direct evidence that supports the History section in the Wikipedia article Pest control in that the Sumerians were one of those who used various herbs and oils as early methods of pest control. Many other English sites fail to go in such depth just claiming simply that those who used herbs as pest control were "ancient civilizations". I do however believe that the acclaimed statements are true because the other sites do state that ancient Sumerian scriptures do show findings of early pest control methods, but still doesn't go into depth like ezinearticles.GuyHimGuy (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ezinearticles.com is a site for self-professed "experts" to self-publish articles. The author of that particular article, Vernon Stent, bills himself as a marketing consultant, not an expert on pest control. If no other source goes into as much detail, where did that author get the detail? It must have come from somewhere if he didn't make it all up.


 * The pest control article states that Sumerians used sufur compounds. That's all Vernon Stent says about Sumerians in his article too, nothing about herbs and oils.


 * A google search of "sumerians pest sulfur compounds" yields many more acceptable links. Even better, a Google Boods search of the same words yields many books that could be used for the same purpose as the proposed link. For example this excerpt from a 1979 publication of the US Government Printing Office would be much better than someone's self-published article.


 * because alternative reliable sources exist for the stated purpose. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

reverbnation.com/RobertPtak
This page needs to be added to Robt Ptak and also Size 14 external Links page. This is the only source of information for musician and producer Robt Ptak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subtitlemeplease (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 March 2013
 * Looking at the article, it appears that there are available sources of information related to the article subjects. The articles also seem to have external links to the artists' social pages, so I am uncertain what value this link will provide to the article that is not covered elsewhere. Mike V  •  Talk  09:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Specific pages needed for Left Coast Lifter article


re: Left Coast Lifter

1.) gcaptain.com/left-coast-lifter-biggest-floating-crane-ever-to-hit-the-west-coast-arrives-in-san-francisco/

2.) www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=1502

Reason 1: Notability (article) complaint with squawk about inclusion of a blog reference, even though it is at a major newspaper website sfgate.com.

Reason 2: Great pictures of this significant structure/device.

Thank you, Leonard G. (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is that a reliable source?
 * Pictures should be uploaded if free, otherwise we don't use them. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

examiner.com/article/blast-returns-to-training-camp
I am just referencing this page for the use of a page I am creating for Clarence H. "Du" Burns Arena. I am stating that the Baltimore Blast hold open practices at the facility.

(Bes2224 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC))
 * Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

RosAsm Forum
I don't know anything about the history of freeforums.org itself, but apparently their has been some abusive use of that service. However, rosasm.freeforums.org is a totally legitimate use of that service. This is the only official site that currently exists for RosAsm. All of the other sites/links for RosAsm are dead so it is important to be able to list the rosasm.freeforums.org site in the article.

RosAsm itself is a very interesting project. It is an x86 Assembly Language with many high level features that are unique to this specific assembler+IDE. The article itself certainly could use some clean-up and NPV, but -- speaking as someone who has written a lot of assembly code -- over-all I feel that it is a worthwhile article that explains what makes RosAsm interesting. I myself have no connection to this project and only learned of it's existence today. OldCodger2 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please specify how this is a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

uh, well, since I never received a notice that you had responded, how could I know to reply... apparently I forgot to check the Watch box. The signifcance of this site is that (as stated above) this is THE OFFICIAL site for RosAsm, this is where the developers communicate with each other, this is where you go to download the program. As far as reliable source... well, if you look at the site itself you will see that it makes it clear that it is the official site. No, there are not any other 3rd party sites that I know of that point to this site and declare it to be the official site. But there is a statement by the primary developer of the software that makes it clear that this is the site. OldCodger2 (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the article is currently flagged for failing to cite external references. But the most important reference cannot be added to the article because for some inexplicable reason, the link is being flagged as spam. So it is a catch-22 situation... OldCodger2 (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

here, try this link:  rosasm.freeforums.org/rosasm-official-updates-19-09-2-012-t10.html   this is where the RosAsm project is PUBLISHED by it's Authors. Yes it is a very informal website, but it is the only existing official website where there is active on-going development. OldCodger2 (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Stifle declined this request because nobody showed how this is a reliable source.
 * I would have declined it because no URL was specified for white-listing.
 * This page isn't for requesting removal of entire sites from the blacklist, it's for requesting that a specific link on a blacklisted site be allowed for use in a specific article.
 * Are you suggesting white-listing that link in your last paragraph? It's just a page from a forum. I'm not questioning that the site is "official", but shouldn't we have a more representative link for use in an article. I suggest rosasm.freeforums.org/index.php. Would that be sufficient? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, thank you for taking an interest in this topic. In response to your questions... I did not provide an actual url because the spam filter works on this page as well, it is simply not possible for me to enter that url anywhere inside wikipedia. The site for RosAsm as stated above is rosasm.freeforums.org. And yes, IMHO the entire site/subdomain ought to be unblocked. Apparently what is being blocked is the entire domain of freeforums.org this blocking was probably based on a few abusive sites/subdomains that are also hosted by them. The problem with the approach of blocking all of freeforums.org is that it is massive overkill which is also blocking lots of legitimate sites such as this one. Would you block all of http://WordPress.com because of a few abusive blogs? Someone with access to such info ought to review why specifically freeforums.org is being blocked and consider narrowing the scope of that blocking. As far as references to RosAsm from other sites... a lot of sites that used to exist which discussed RosAsm have vanished. This is often the case with even major projects, the internet is a fickle and dynamic place. The developer who started the project has left, but a community of other interested developers and users are carrying on the work. If you want to discuss the notability of RosAsm and whether or not it deserves an article given how little attention it has attracted then please see the RosAsm talk page where I make some observations about this... bottom line, I feel that the innovative approach being taken does make it a notable version of assembly language. and I am someone who has written a lot of assembly language. OldCodger2 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, including index.php as part of the link is bad form from a web design standpoint. Suppose that tomorrow they renamed the page to index.html or home.php or any of a dozen other perfectly legitimate file names. In RESTful web design the actual file names should not be part of the link. The link should specify the intent not the mechanism. In this case, the intent is the home page of the forums. That other link I provided was in response to the request to show that this was indeed the official site. Perhaps I should point out again that I am in no way associated with the RosAsm project itself. I am a neutral 3rd party who has considerable expertise in the subject of assembly languages and I find RosAsm to be very interesting. For more info about me see my wikipedia user page OldCodger2 (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Some Links: showing that the rosasm.freeforums.org is official OldCodger2 (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "RosAsm is back" http://www.masmforum.com/board/index.php?topic=18591.0
 * "Where to get RosAsm" http://masm32.com/board/index.php?topic=55.0


 * I'm still considering this. I'll address each of your points.
 * You could have easily provided a URL, as many others have done on this page, by omitting the http prefix.
 * freeforums.org in its entirety is blocked, yes. Freeforums.org undoubtedly hosts several "official" forums for various groups or causes. That is irrelevant. We had a massive problem with it in the past, not just "a few abusive sites/subdomains that are also hosted by them" but many, with no sign of stopping. We don't have that problem with Blogspot or Wordpress. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2008. So yes, the domain deserves to be blacklisted as a whole.
 * There is no requirement for a REST resource to invariably be a clean URL, but that's a discussion best held elsewhere. In any case we can probably agree that a REST resource shouldn't be a root URL either. That's even worse design practice than using file names. For the whitelist, including index.php, index.html, or any other definite URL happens to be our practice. It isn't our problem if a site re-blacklists itself by changing its URL naming. In that event, we can always fix the whitelist entry. The whitelist is intended for white-listing specific pages on blacklisted domains, and for that we need a specific URL path — a path name, not just a domain name. To whitelist a home page or root page, by necessity the URL path must include a file name for the whitelist to function properly as a whitelist for pages rather than domains.
 * As I said earlier, I am not questioning that the forum is official. That isn't the issue here.
 * WP:ELNO wouldn't allow the use of any arbitrary link on a domain to be used as a reference due to it consisting entirely of user-generated content. A general purpose link to the forum in the RosAsm article would be acceptable and appropriate for whitelisting, which is why I proposed the index.php page. I ask again, would that be sufficient for the RosAsm article? ~Amatulić (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, we seem to have different concepts of what constitutes a link, but yes,  rosasm.freeforums.org/index.php  would be fine if that is what is required for the link. Thank you for giving this your consideration. OldCodger2 (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

fotolia.com for Fotolia
The article Fotolia needs to be whitelisted so that we can add it as the official website for the subject.

The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 18:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone already added it in a section above. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it OK to whitelist us.fotolia.com/Info/AboutUs ? Stifle (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

casarealportuguesa.org
casarealportuguesa.org/dynamicdata/documentos.asp

Hello, I'd like to request the unblocking of the website casarealportuguesa.org. I ask this because I avidly work on royalist and historical articles pertaining to Portugal, and the site is the official site of the current Duke of Braganza, Duarte Pio. I am currently working on expanding his article, and I'm trying to explain the various roles the Duke holds, as well as trying to present both sides of arguments between the Duke and the Portuguese Republic. The whole website's unblocking would be quite useful, as I could then use the various pages on the site for various articles here on wiki, such as Afonso, Prince of Beira and Isabel, Duchess of Braganza, but it would be the most useful to the article of Duarte Pio and the House of Braganza. On the site, there is an archive of his previous roles, agendas, events, and communiqués, which would help me present the Duke's roles, activities, and his side to quarrels. I appreciate any and all feedback, and I hope that we can work together so that these articles on Wikipedia can be that much more informative and sourced. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this is a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * due to lack of reply. Werieth (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

aceshowbiz.com story on Jodie Foster
Foster broke up with her long-time girlfriend, Cydney Bernard, in 2008. Jodie and Cydney had been dating since www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00016024.html. People are treating her 2013 speech about her sexuality as a "coming out speech" when in reality she came out publicly (and broke up with her partner) wuite a while ago. Just the page needs to be whitelisted. --DHeyward (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This does not appear to be a reliable source, although I am open to being convinced otherwise. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * due to lack of reply. Werieth (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

newtown-conspiracy-theory-fau-professor-insists-on-cover-up
This is important as it contains info related to James Tracy's conspiracy theory that arose after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The aforementioned article would benefit from that page's whitelisting. Image2012 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * due to lack of reply. Werieth (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

smashinginterviews.com
I am requesting that this specific article: smashinginterviews.com/interviews/athletes/alexis-lexi-thompson-interview-an-american-wunderkind be allowed to be used as a reference in the article Lexi Thompson. This is a legitimate interview with the subject of the article, Lexi Thompson, and contains information that will help improve the article by providing accurate, referenced facts. I am only requesting whitelisting for this specific URL, not for the entire site. --Crunch (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How is this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the interview with the subject (Lexi Thompson) is not accurate? On whom does the burden of proof lie in this case? --Crunch (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The burden of proof is on the requester. You can ask for support at WP:RSN if desired. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * due to lack of reply. Werieth (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

netzsch-thermal-analysis.com


We were blacklisted some time ago, because one of our competitors, the owner of www.thermal-analysis.com, were blacklisted because of spamming. The regex entry of his domain in the blacklist is targeting our domain also, because it bans every domain which includes the term "thermal-analysis.com". Since we are not responsible or part of the company, which domain is "www.thermal-analysis.com" in any way, we would like to request a whitelisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.98.211 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 18 March 2013‎
 * The collateral damage is unfortunate. However:
 * Wikipedia has no article on Netzsch, so there is no need to whitelist any page on your site for the purpose of referencing such an article.
 * In looking over the website netzsch-thermal-analysis.com, I see nothing there that would conceivably be used as a reference or citation in any other Wikipedia article.
 * We generally don't accept requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest, but there have been exceptions. Generally we want such requests to come from trusted, high-volume contributors. Can you explain what encyclopedic purpose would be served to create a whitelist exception for your website, from the perspective of Wikipedia's (not Netzsch's) goals? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * due to lack of reply. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Google?

 * google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jcrinc.com%2Fcommon%2FPDFs%2Ffpdfs%2Fpubs%2Fpdfs%2FJCReqs%2FJCP-06-09-S6.pdf&ei=RsSCUbfuFuj-igKn5IGoAg&usg=AFQjCNHkN7umGgf9pwnSVkVvNWvRiKHxXg&bvm=bv.45960087,d.cGE

I request the whitelisting of the above mentioned page so that it can be linked as a source for the article physician. It is a link to a pdf document published by the The Joint Commission, but because it is hosted through google it seems to be blocked. There may be a more appropriate way to make this document available to readers, so I am open to suggestions if this is not the correct approach. Thanks and regards, Puhlaa (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * . There is no reason for Wikipedia to use a Google redirect link for any page on the internet. Please use the direct link instead: http://www.jcrinc.com/common/PDFs/fpdfs/pubs/pdfs/JCReqs/JCP-06-09-S6.pdf — which isn't blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, no need to use a google redirect - got it! Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

blog.360cities.net


The article Largest_photographs_in_the_world had numerous links to this site, which were not just added recently. A new largest photo has been made, and an inexperienced editor made a couple of small mistakes while adding the information about it. I was trying to tidy up after the other editor, but the spam filter wouldn't let me because of the 360cities links. The filter falsely said that I was adding links to blog.360cities.net. The material I was trying to change did not include those links. It's in a different part of the article. I thought I might be able to get around the filter by just editing a section that doesn't have the forbidden link, but no, that wasn't allowed either. Finally I did this and made the changes I wanted to make. — rybec 02:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We could get away with
 * www.360_cities.net/london-photo-en.html
 * blog.360_cities.net/prague-18-gigapixels-how-it-was-made/
 * I think. Looking further.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah .. that was it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Nov_1 - soliciting to spam Wikipedia and even offering revenue for it. Unfortunately, the spamming was never cleaned up (I guess that that is needed ..).  Some wikis have it blacklisted, and it is on meta (probably that was done after some local blacklisting was already in place).  I would suggest to whitelist the reference (IF nothing better can be found .. actually, we are not a howto on how to make a panorama .. and I don't think a blog is a suitable reference for such things, but well), and remove all external links.  I should however say, that they did change their 'how to contribute to Wikipedia' .. still it gives an incentive through their revenues, and they still suggest people to get their links on Wikipedia.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking into this. I had only searched the archives of this page. The underscores are something I added to circumvent the filter—sorry it wasn't clear from the diff. I see the reason for blacklisting this site. — rybec 05:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Stifle (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Army Guide Website

 * army-guide.com/rus/product4591.html

I request the whitelisting of the above page

It is quite informative and required for being used as a reference.. --Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Besides, please also consider unblocking the entire website (if possible) .. The information it supplies is unique and reliable

--Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Reliable, maybe. Unique? Not really. There are plenty of non-blacklisted sites in English with coverage of this vehicle, such as http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2013_news_defence_army_military_industry_uk/defence_industry_of_pakistan_hit_will_unveiled_the_new_mrap_burraq_in_the_next_few_months_2003133.html - would that suffice? Non-blacklisted alternatives should always be used when possible. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

This article on army guide provides info about its US approval, its crew, doors , suspension and other facilities including engine power, landing, etc ... Army Recognition doesn't provide those details ..

Also, please let me know if this ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/94218890@N03/8573918875/in/photostream/lightbox/ ) can be used as a reference..

The army guide article a-g.com/rus/product4591.html is required to be used as a reference for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Burraq_MRAP

So, please consider unblocking the article of Burraq MRAP on the website i.e /rus/product4591.html in order to make the article well sourced..

Also can I know why the website has been blacklisted? Spam? Thanks

--Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Provides info about its crew, doors, suspension, etc." That's why I questioned the reliability of this source. This vehicle is still under wraps, and details have not been announced by the Pakistani government or the company developing the vehicle. Where is army-guide.com getting this stuff? I'd rather see articles referencing official sources that contain established up to date information, rather than unofficial sources displaying apparent speculation. I am unconvinced that this is a reliable source.


 * As to why it is blacklisted, it's due to this spam case.


 * We cannot verify the authenticity of anything posted on Flickr, because Flickr contains only user-generated content and is therefore not citable. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Please compare the information provided by the army guide Burraq MRAP article with:

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130319/DEFREG04/303190011/Pakistan-Unveil-MRAP-Vehicle

http://www.flickr.com/photos/94218890@N03/8573918875/in/photostream/lightbox/

http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2013_news_defence_army_military_industry_uk/defence_industry_of_pakistan_hit_will_unveiled_the_new_mrap_burraq_in_the_next_few_months_2003133.html

Do you find any contradicting material?

... About Flickr, I mean to say the information i.e. the photo ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/94218890@N03/8575012784/in/photostream/lightbox/ ) & Burraq Specifications ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/94218890@N03/8573918875/in/photostream/lightbox/ ) have been released by Heavy Industries Taxila and uploaded on forums ( http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-defence-industry/241067-pakistan-unveil-mrap-vehicle.html ), photobucket, tinypic ( http://oi50.tinypic.com/1rdbbm.jpg ) & flickr ...Heavy Industries Taxila doesn't have a website.. I have seen photos from many photo sharing websites being used as reference in wikipedia (e.g ,SEE Al-Hadeed) ..

--Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, please consider the improvements made by the website, i.e, no pop-ups and repeated ads, etc... The information is 100 % reliable ....

--Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)


 * If alternatives exist for the army-guide information you propose to whitelist, then use those alternatives. And yes, I see contradicting material, such as specs that haven't been officially released. As such, I don't see how army-guide.com can possibly be considered a reliable source.
 * As for photos reposted on forums and flickr, we cannot link to content that may be a copyright violation, unless it can be verified that the uploader of the photos actually owns the copyright.
 * I must ask, since you seem familiar with the improvements to the web site, what is your association with it? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I am in no way associated or linked with army guide website as you suspect... This page http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3761.html was earlier unblocked to be used on some wiki page according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist .. Who white-listed it if army guide isn't a reliable source .. ?? A large number of websites supply details of M101 howitzer ..

Also, let me clear that I am creating this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Burraq_MRAP and I require some content to be verified by the above mentioned link .. All your allegations of my association with army guide website are baseless.

And for the Flickr photo mentioning Burraq Specifications, why is a copyright required when wiki cites info from websites having copyright. Note that the flickr photo is being linked as a reference and not being uploaded on wikipedia as a photo (with copyright violation) .. Its authenticity is undisputed..

Consider white-listing the article (For Burraq) for the following reasons:


 * Some Specifications, weight,crew,landing, suspension (Info released by Heavy Indusries Taxila) to be cited on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burraq MRAP


 * High Reliability & M101 howitzer article already white-listed on Wikipedia (despite other options too).


 * No Contradiction (with some info also provided by other websites).


 * No spam (at least from the Burraq MRAP Article).


 * A reference for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burraq MRAP

Are you still unconvinced ???

--Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Still unconvinced. I will go over your points one by one.
 * Any "allegations" about a conflict of interest are in your own mind. All I did was ask a question. You answered. Done.
 * You require certain content to be verified for an article you're creating, and that's fine. Use alternative verifiable sources. They demonstrably exist, as shown above; therefore, there is no need to white-list a page on a blacklisted site that has already demonstrated its unreliability by publishing content based on heresay rather than official sources.
 * Two comments on the side-issue of citing pictures on Flickr:
 * The authenticity of any picture on Flickr is subject to dispute. See WP:ELNO #10. Wikipedia article shouldn't link to sites that consist of 100% user generated content. I can print up an official looking document in 10 minutes and upload it to Flickr. So what? Your assertion that "its authenticity is undisputed" is a false statement. It is disputed because it is unverifiable. Such is the nature of sites where users create the content. That is why Wikipedia can't cite itself.
 * Wikipedia has a legal policy that says explicitly: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Photographs of copyrighted works uploaded to Flickr are very likely copyright violations. We cannot link to such photos according to Wikipedia policy. See the shortcut WP:COPYLINK. The fact that some other article currently violates this policy has no weight here; rather it's an argument for fixing that article rather than compounding the problem with yet another link to a copyright violation.
 * The fact that army-guide.com doesn't contradict other sources for "some info" is irrelevant. The fact remains that it published information that, at the time of publication, was not available in any reliable sources. That fact alone makes it an unreliable source. The fact that a couple other articles manage to link to army-guide.com, is also irrelevant.
 * Not sure what you mean by "no spam". The site is blacklisted for that very reason. If you are referring to no ads on the site, well, that is irrelevant too.
 * As to your final point about putting a reference on the talk page, you can always include the link without the leading 'http:'.
 * Finally, if you know the content of an identifiable authoritative source (like a government document that is not available online), you can always still cite it. Links are for convenience, not mandatory for citations.
 * You may consider this request "provisionally declined", but I will leave it open for a time if other administrators have a different viewpoint and interpretation. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The document has two pages & is released by HIT ,, So can I put "Burraq MRAP - Specifications (Document)" Publisher: Heavy Industries Taxila between the ref tags ..

And what's your say on the M101 howitzer white-listed page ..

Any page which has low reliability isn't white-listed on wikipedia...Then why M101, why not Burraq ?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoccupiedkashmir (talk • contribs) 10:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

--Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 29 March 2013 (UTC)

No other admin is available to give a view here .. Please consider unblocking the page on the basis of providing a reference for Burraq article & M101 howitzer page (white-listed earlier on wikipedia) .............. I am waiting for the final decision ... --Maxx786 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * First, that the site is not contradicting other sites does not mean anything about information which is not mentioned on the other sites. That part may still be unreliable, or contradict in the future.  It may also not contradict things in the future, sure, but that still does not make it reliable now.
 * Spam is not related to the content that is on a page, spam is related to how links were added. We had, and still regularly have, very distinguished sites being pushed by their owners.  That action is the spam, whatever the site has to say, that goes for porn sites, that goes for news agencies.  And note that there are porn-sites which have not been pushed/spammed, and which are hence not blacklisted.  They get blacklisted after the abuse, and that is what happened here.  However, that the site is not a reliable source is not helping its cause.
 * That the other page is whitelisted is likely because it stands on its own merits. Comparisons like this are the basis for WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
 * We base our content on reliable information. The information you want to include is not released yet, and including it here, even based on a vague source, would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL.  You can not reliably source that information, hence it should not be on Wikipedia (yet).  For that reason, I do not see any reason why this should be whitelisted, there is enough information from reliable sites to base the article on (and if that is not even the case, maybe the subject is not ready for Wikipedia, yet).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If it is so, then I withdraw the request. Thanks --Maxx786 (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)