MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/12

norm.org/index.html
Please refer to MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/10 where the fully qualified norm.org/index.html worked. Not it is on the blacklist. I wonder if someone could comment on this and consider whitelisting it, please? Fiddle  Faddle  23:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)


 * These are whitelisted:
 * http://www.norm.org/index.html
 * http://www.norm.org/history.html
 * http://www.norm.org/regimen.html
 * Nothing else regarding norm.org will work, it have to be these exact urls. Nothing further to do here, I think.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Somewhat bizarrely I failed to be able to add http://norm.org/index.html to an article yesterday. Then I realised that this does not have the 'www.' element. Would you add that variant to the whitelist please? Fiddle  Faddle  10:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The link is there now, and useable. No need to 'clutter' the whitelist with more or more complex entries.  Typing out the full link is fine, and these only have a real place on one article anyway.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are the expert. My role is to ask. Yours to explain why or why not. I am content. Fiddle   Faddle  12:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

TheUbie.Com, AmericanSmokeless.Com, Tim Sheridan
1.Explain why the site should be whitelisted.


 * I am a legitimate person, business, and scolar. I have a right to equal service.
 * The black list is being used to make money for the pirates. (against wiki policy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.231.176 (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

2.Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.


 * I have made many edits ((Neanderthals comprise 2-4% of our dna))
 * The General Philip Sheridan page intro.
 * There is a opera/musical of the The Twelve Days of Christmas (song)).
 * Currently, I was mentioning the largest telescope in the world. A 785 inch (focal length) solar scope.
 * I am also THE inventor of the modern v-a-p-o-r-i-z-e-r. U.S. patent 7, 4 1 5, 9 8 2  It makes so much money the pirates are just totally criminal and denying every service on the net --including using Wikipedia for their campaign against me! Please stop them.

3.Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. Please use the basic URL so that there is no link (www.google.ca, not http://www.google.ca).


 * AmericanSmokeless.Com
 * TheUbie.Com

Please add a LinkSummary|example.org ....




 * P.S. please stop harassing me and stalking me when I use Wikipedia.


 * Thank you

Tim Sheridan


 * Note request is from a banned spammer: Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive215. Numerous IPs linked to repeated spamming. Werieth (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * users
 * spam pages
 * User:Abmin/The Ubie
 * The Ubie (deleted 9 (!) times, see als Articles for deletion/American Smokeless)
 * Original blacklisting request
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2010
 * spam pages
 * User:Abmin/The Ubie
 * The Ubie (deleted 9 (!) times, see als Articles for deletion/American Smokeless)
 * Original blacklisting request
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2010
 * spam pages
 * User:Abmin/The Ubie
 * The Ubie (deleted 9 (!) times, see als Articles for deletion/American Smokeless)
 * Original blacklisting request
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2010
 * spam pages
 * User:Abmin/The Ubie
 * The Ubie (deleted 9 (!) times, see als Articles for deletion/American Smokeless)
 * Original blacklisting request
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2010
 * spam pages
 * User:Abmin/The Ubie
 * The Ubie (deleted 9 (!) times, see als Articles for deletion/American Smokeless)
 * Original blacklisting request
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2010
 * Original blacklisting request
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2010

TheUbie.Com, AmericanSmokeless.Com, Tim Sheridan (2)


1.Explain why the site should be whitelisted.


 * I am a legitimate person, business, and scolar. I have a right to equal service.
 * The black list is being used to make money for pirates (against wiki policy)

2.Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.


 * I have made many edits ((Neanderthals comprise 2-4% of our dna))
 * The General Philip Sheridan page intro.
 * There is a musical of the The Twelve Days of Christmas (song).
 * Currently, I was mentioning the largest telescope in the world. A 785 inch (focal length) solar scope.
 * I am also THE inventor of the modern v-a-p-o-r-i-z-e-r. U.S. patent 7, 4 1 5, 9 8 2  It makes so much money the pirates are just totally criminal and denying every service on the net --including using Wikipedia for their campaign against me! Please stop them.

3.Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. Please use the basic URL so that there is no link (www.google.ca, not http://www.google.ca).


 * AmericanSmokeless.Com
 * TheUbie.Com

Please add a LinkSummary|example.org ....


 * The Ubie Vaporizer|AmericanSmokeless.Com?


 * P.S. please stop harassing me and stalking me when I use Wikipedia.


 * Thank you


 * . In reply to "please stop harassing me and stalking me when I use Wikipedia": Please stop harassing Wikipedia, and stop spamming.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

www.hockeyfights.com/news/100844
Used in Rory Fitzpatrick to cite his signing with the Florida Panthers. Not sure why it raises flags but it is a good source of information. That site is very good about reporting accurate information about free agent signings in hockey. 74.74.173.131 (talk) 06:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We normally ask that requests be backed by an established user. Can you please check with a relevant WikiProject about whether this is considered appropriate? Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

petitions.whitehouse.gov

 * petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/

more specifically petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/start-national-effort-digitize-all-public-government-info/15vthgVB


 * 1) petitions.whitehouse.gov should be whitelisted because it contains responses to petitions in addition to petitions themselves. I know that petitions can be troublesome links but sometimes the responses are great sources to cite.
 * 2) A range of articles related to actions of the United States Federal Government would benefit from this unblock, as unblocking this would allow this top-level government website to be cited in articles about the actions it takes by popular demand. See We the People (petitioning system) for information about this site and its impact.

Note that I am trying to cite David Ferriero. He is a great third-party source for giving comment on federal government policy beyond his control. I ought not be restricted in doing this. The site may not be blacklisted, but the word "petitions" in the URL seems to trigger a block. Previous discussion about this has happened.
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2013 - response was leave blacklist people alone and go to whitelist
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/06 - this conversation faltered

Thanks,  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   21:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * the request to white-list the entire domain. We don't white-list entire domains here, but we could white-list a specific page. There doesn't seem to be a way to white-list only the home page of a site unless that page has a specific path rather than a domain name. I suggest white-listing the overview page petitions.whitehouse.gov/how-why/introduction as a general-purpose link, which describes the site, how it works, step-by-step guide, etc. Please let us know if that's acceptable.


 * As to white-listing a specific petition, is there significant coverage on it to demonstrate that it is worth white-listing? The last thing we want here is to white-list anything for the purpose of providing more coverage.


 * Regarding the current blacklist rule, it may be possible to contrive a regex that triggers only when the word "petition" occurs only in the domain name rather than the entire path. I am not sure how to do this, but if it could be figured out, it would solve the problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Amatulic. I would settle for a ruling for or against white-listing this specific petition right now, and then I might have a better idea of what I should do about the rest of the domain. Again, the problem never was this domain - it is the word "petitions", as any url which contains this word is blacklisted. I am not sure that this domain was ever thoughtfully blacklisted.
 * Yes, this petition is actually covered in some other reliable sources, but that is irrelevant because I am not writing about this petition itself. The petition addresses a certain issue which is bigger than the petition itself and since the Archivist of the United States responded authoritatively to it, I wanted to use this as a source among others in describing certain government practices. How would you feel about whitelisting this one petition, and and then I sort out any broader issues elsewhere?  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   17:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems I mis-read the request. I didn't notice that you were requesting whitelisting of a path, rather than a domain. The path you proposed didn't work. I stuck an 's' on the end of it: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petitions -- That should not be a problem, and probably preferable than the alternative I proposed. What do you think?


 * If you want to whitelist the path to any petition (without the 's'), that won't fly. That's the same as whitelisting the whole domain.


 * How, exactly, would this specific petition be used as a source? Generally (see WP:ELNO) we don't link to user-generated content. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Bluerasberry - the problem is the word petition and the 'spamming' from that. Whatever petition site, those sites get 'spammed' (added solely for the reason to get people to vote for 'your cause'). Moreover, petitions that are running are not useful in any form in Wikipedia, and for petitions that are closed, the only thing the link is useful for is the final result number. That being said, even for that they are a primary source, and that number is only, for Wikipedia, of interest if that petition has had some real impact. And if that is true, it is generally published by other sources, making the primary source superfluous (and if it is not covered, the petition itself is hardly notable enough to be mentioned here anyway).

Therefore, we would only whitelist certain specific links to specific petitions - that may be a case here. I would strongly advise against blanket whitelisting the whole petition site, however respectable.
 * Stifle (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

www.aldservice.com/en/reliability-software/free-mtbf-calculator.html
I would like to add the following link as an external link on the MTBF page on Wikipedia. It is a link for a free MTBF calculator which anyone can use after downloading it for free. Amber at A.L.D. Ltd. (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dear Amber, thank you for your question. However, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a service to find free calculators - people who need a (free) calculator should use Google, not Wikipedia.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

123Greetings.com
On the 123Greetings.com article as an external link because the link is the official website of the subject of the article. Josh769 (talk) 19:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Is there an index.htm, an about-page or something similar on the site that we can use - whitelisting the domain is open up Wikipedia to the same spam again that got it blacklisted in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅. Home page can actually be whitelisted without allowing any other sub pages or domains, e.g. with .  Amalthea  11:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * And I have undone. No, that is not the solution, that just exactly allows for all the spam again, please do an index.htm or, even better, the about page to deter spamming.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I am not giving a further explanation, per WP:BEANS, but do not take whitelisting too light - people spam to make money and spammers are known to take every bit you give them. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

moneyweek.com
On the MoneyWeek article as an external link because the link is the official website of the subject of the article..--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅, home page can now be linked to. Amalthea  19:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Bumping this one back as well, please do find an index.htm or an about page (will remove the entry shortly). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

====www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk%2FEgla%2FEgils_saga.pdf&ei=jcGoUtj-AuHKsQSMuoGYCQ&usg=AFQjCNEdQ28Ex22fYoRUAv5JXBsEHhzyhg&sig2=jSQ7Oub6ypBgIGrxZ8B59g====

I request that reference to this URL (this page only) be allowed:

http://www[dot]google[dot]com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk%2FEgla%2FEgils_saga.pdf&ei=jcGoUtj-AuHKsQSMuoGYCQ&usg=AFQjCNEdQ28Ex22fYoRUAv5JXBsEHhzyhg&sig2=jSQ7Oub6ypBgIGrxZ8B59g

The URL is to a cite for a translation of Egils Saga, for use in the article on Skalla-grimr (Egil's father). The present last footnote in that article has a web URL that returns a 404 error message. The above listed URL works, however. You can find this link on Google by searching for "Egils Saga Einarsson" If you have a substitute link for the reference, that's fine too. PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (Fixed header) Would the direct link to http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Egla/Egils_saga.pdf work? The google.com/url link appears to just redirect to that link. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the solution, Matt. google.com/url?-links are copied from their search results, and clicking them 'tells' Google that you found it interesting, and that the ranking may need to go up (that is why it is blacklisted, not why people request whitelisting ..).  PraeceptorIP, please use the link provided by Matt, the google.com/url?-link is .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/review/state-of-emergency-is-a-forgettable-entry-the-zombie-movie-genre
It's an informative and accurate review of the film State of Emergency for the article in my userspace User:Jenova20/State of Emergency (film). I don't understand why the page is blacklisted because it seems pretty informative and well researched. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 12:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read /Common requests? Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I have now. Can i get this page unblocked for the article? It's hardly controversial, and i'm using it for a review of a film, not scientific or factual evidence of something that matters. It doesn't bother me if they are a commission paying media company etc, but their review is very good and very accurate and would improve my article-in-progress greatly. If it was as simple to replace with another review, i would, but it's not. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 09:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we speed things up a bit? I know we're all volunteers but this should be uncontroversial. It's an opinionated review, and a good one. It easily meets unblocking criteria. I'm asking for one page on the site, not the entire site. Thanks ツ Jenova   20  (email) 21:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You claim to have read /Common requests and you still insist on whitelisting? Have you even bothered to look for alternative links? Here's one, a review of the exact same movie by the exact same author: http://voices.yahoo.com/zombie-hunter-ridiculous-irreverent-good-12342845.html
 * It took me less than 2 minutes to find it.
 * This request is . ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

www.dyingscene.com/news/mormon-missionary-hardcore-punk-band-tartar-control-releases-music-video/
I'm creating an article about a punk band: Tartar Control. Dyingscene.com is a community for Punk fans with news, videos and reviews of numerous Punk Rock bands. The link I'm requesting to be whitelisted is an announcement for the release of Tartar Control's most recent music video. Pattyco888 (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * . You're welcome to ask again once your article is accepted in main article space, but there's really no reason to whitelist pages for articles that don't exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Galatta.com
I want the entire site to be white-listed, because it is very notable and one of South India's most powerful media websites, having appeared in many secondary sources. Such as, and  &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Simply, this site and its spammers are banned, which is even worse than just plainly blacklisted. We are not going to whitelist/de-blacklist this whole site, they have abused Wikipedia more, more than enough.  We can discuss specific links, but the whole site is plainly .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * How exactly have they "abused Wikipedia more, more than enough"? Is there any recorded evidence? &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If an editor is banned, that means that there has been that discussion with evidence, typically at WP:AN:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 1
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133 (the banning discussion)
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2012
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2013
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/08
 * I know it is years ago, but it is also the same number of years that hardly anyone found anything useful on that site, and hardly anything has been whitelisted (in fact, the only case, vide supra, where a link was requested for whitelisting was for something that was replaceable and no whitelisting was performed). The is no way the whole site is going to be whitelisted, especially not until several independent links have found there merit and were whitelisted (and note that there are many, many examiner.com links whitelisted, whereas de-listing of the site is still being denied regularly).  Spammers of this size of campaign that get pushed to the level of banning (which does not happen that often!) have a tendency to keep on trying (even the ones that did not manage to get banned).  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the three links you provided on hindu.com are all three from 2006 .. and remarks in other media are not necessarily a reason to call something notable, it may be due to the same type of campaigning/promotion that got them blacklisted here. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked someone to have a look, and they pointed me to dotcominfoway.com/internet-marketing/search-engine-marketing (you'll have to copy-paste it into your browser, it is blacklisted), suggesting that we should still be careful. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Then ok, I'm beginning to agree. But maybe only two articles from Galatta can be whitelisted for now? Bcos I'm using this [www.galatta.com/tamil/news/pudhiya-paravai-re-released/40616/] to expand an article which I want to take to GA level. And this [www.galatta.com/tamil/news/ramesh-tilak-from-being-a-rj-to-big-screen/69247/] for the future. &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @User Dirk Beetstra, got any reply? &#45;--- Kailash29792 (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * . It seems you haven't tried to find non-blacklisted alternatives. The first link you propose above is practically devoid of content except for a short paragraph, and the information in it can easily be found elsewhere in mainstream sources, such as http://www.thehindu.com/features/cinema/the-bird-flies-high/article553507.ece
 * Whitelisting the second one "for the future" isn't a compelling reason either. Again, please look for alternative sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

www.plasticsurgery.org/
This website is the official website of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, it's the official organization for plastic surgeons which are board certified in plastic surgery by the American Board of Medical Specialties. They are heavily involved in plastic surgery education, for example, AMBS certification candidates must have gone though an accredited plastic surgery residency program. They are also involved in public outreach such as educational material for public. So alot of articles involving plastic and reconstructive surgery may like to use this organization's website as a source, to verify information like procedure information, statistics, verify board certification status, etc. Ssc-capricorn (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . You have not specified what page from that site you want white-listed, and for what purpose. This page is for requesting white-listing of specific pages on blacklisted sites, not for removal of entries from the blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

adf.ly/apvyV
It just leads to google.Yoshi24517 (talk) 04:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . URL redirect sites are not to be used - please link to goolge directly, there is simply no need for this redirect.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * See also /Common requests. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

www.avoiceformen.com

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.



I am the Managing Editor for this site so I do have a Conflict of Interest. We do not understand exactly how we got blacklisted, it appears that some individual unaffiliated with us was putting up spam links to inappropriate articles. We feel this individual should be banned, not our organization. One of our senior editors, Erin Pizzey, has her own Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey and contributors who have written for us include Warren Farrell, Helen Smith (psychologist), Miles Groth, and others who also have Wikipedia pages. We are also currently working on a draft article to submit on A Voice for Men itself; the site has received substantial mainstream media coverage in the last two years. We seek help getting whitelisted or just removed from the blacklist by a neutral party who can confirm we are a legitimate site not a spam site.Dean Esmay (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * . Nobody claims that avoiceformen is a spam site. The site is blacklisted because representatives have used it abusively on Wikipedia, and I am seeing no assurance that such abuse won't resume if the site is removed from the blacklist. We don't whitelist entire domains, based on requests on this page. This page is for requesting whitelisting of individual pages that are deemed worthy of using as a reference.
 * No member of our organization has used Wikipedia abusively and if they did and we found out we would eject them. We believe that whoever did this was likely sock-puppeting for organizations who dislike us or our message. In the last few years our organization has expanded to include reputable academics and other noted individuals; while Wikipedia policy states that members of an organization may not ask for removal from the blacklist, requesting whitelisting for individuals or organizations we are involved with seems in order.Dean Esmay (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The page MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is used for requesting blacklisting or removal from the blacklist.
 * However, there has already been extensive discussion on that page about avoiceformen, and so far none of the arguments for removal have been compelling. We also don't consider removal requests from individuals with a conflict of interest. The request needs to come from a trusted, high-volume contributor.
 * If your article about A Voice For Men is approved, we can consider whitelisting a single page only, for use in that article. A whitelisting request for that situation would be considered even from someone with a conflict of interest. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, we will see if the article in question is accepted and if so will request whitelisting at that time. It would still seem the article on Erin Pizzey should be whitelisted because it has multiple references to her work on AVfM on it.Dean Esmay (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ...Except, you haven't specified a page about Erin Pizzey that needs whitelisting for use in the Wikipedia article. You can post blacklisted links if you omit the http prefix. 12.107.176.9 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I thought I had. The article on Erin Pizzey, one of our senior editors, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Pizzey makes mention in several places to her work on A Voice for Men, including numerous articles penned by her and numerous radio shows she has done for the site. Claims that we have ever spammed or abused Wikipedia are false but Wikipedia provides no mechanism for us to protest such claims as false. Whitelisting the site on an article which notes her extensive work there would seem in order to me.Dean Esmay (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We won't whitelist the whole site due to past abuse. Whether the abuse came from your organization or others is immaterial to the receiving end of that abuse. If you're curious, the individual discussion that led to the blacklisting is here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2012 and the first (of several) declined requests for de-listing is here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2012.
 * As I stated before, this page is for requesting whitelisting of individual blacklisted pages. We don't need a link to a Wikipedia article. Please post the links to blacklisted pages that you want whitelisted, explain the purpose and how it would enhance the article, remembering that we don't white-list for convenience purposes either. The article in which you want to put a blacklisted link must clearly benefit from the presence of that link. If you continue to insist that the entire site be de-listed, that won't happen, and this is the wrong venue to request it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Concur with Amatulic. This is an example of an abuse edit. Basically, it does not matter who exactly is performing that abuse, fact is, that avoiceformen.com was abused by several IPs.  We don't have to give evidence that it was someone from the organisation, that it was someone interested in the organisation, or whatever, the spam blacklist is there to protect Wikipedia against that form of abuse.  My concern now is - you are here with a vested interest, telling Wikipedia editors that a page that notes her extensive work there should link to it - I do not see any policy/guideline reason why we would link to the site, nor to the work itself, the only reason could be to use some of it as a reference to confirm statements on Wikipedia.  The only place where a link to the homepage would be suitable is on A Voice for Men (e.g. an about-page; see /Common requests).  Erin Pizzey does not need an external link to avoiceformen.com, nor direct links to the work she published there - it would need independent references that that work is notable (which I do not doubt it is, so those independent references will exist).
 * Whether or not it was spammed, abused or pushed by members of the organisation itself, it is an advocacy site with a history of abuse, I would strongly discourage blanket whitelisting or de-blacklisting of this site, and only consider specific, really necessary, links to be whitelisted. Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All right, so if I understand all this properly, I should list specific contributions by Erin Pizzey that are notable on A Voice for Men, and ask for those specific entries to be whitelisted? There are also notable contributions from other noted figures on Wikipedia on the site (Warren Farrell and Miles Groth, to name a couple), so the best course of action would be to list their specific entries on those pages? We're struggling here because I utterly condemn abuse of Wikipedia (I've been a Wikipedian for about 10 years) and we would ban anyone affiliated with our organization who did that, nevertheless, we are a very high-traffic and influential site which a number of prominent academics and other famous individuals have contributed to. We're part of a small but growing movement. It's hard to know what to do without stepping on toes, but to give legitimate acknowledgement to the work of these people. Would it be better to ask someone unaffiliated with our group to make these requests, or would that just further exacerbate the situation?Dean Esmay (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it should be referenced independently - there is no need to link to her work, you link to independent websites, not written by anyone related to A Voice for Men.
 * Relating to that, I have almost completely cleared out the linkfarm in the External links section on the article - We are not the yellow pages, a web directory, see WP:EL/WP:ELNO/WP:ELOFFICIAL/WP:NOT. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that there are more primary references in the article - the primary references only show that she wrote it, not whether it is notable that she wrote it. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, all right, this is frustrating as it seems to me that the site is being blocked for misbehavior by others, not because the content in question is not notable. This seems to follow the letter but not the spirit of Wikipedia to me, but we might as well close out this request, it's clear that no one is willing to work with me on this at this time. If anyone changes their minds, and agrees that some of the content is notable, and wants to work with me as a Wikipedian In Residence, let me know. Notable persons such as Pizzey, Warren Farrell, Helen Smith, Miles Groth, and others have published on this site, including original works written by them, interviews, and more. It's not a link-farm, it's notable material on a prominent site, and should in my view be as fair game as other political sites. But maybe I'm just too biased. Dean Esmay (talk) 15:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whether it got blocked by misbehavior by others or not is not a problem of the blacklist. It was abused, and that is what is the blacklist blocks.  That the content is notable or not is not an issue, one can still write about it, also you.  And whether content is notable is not shown by linking to the site itself, that is shown by others who have written about it (I've written papers, but that is not notable on a Wikipedia-scale since mainstream literature did not note that.  I can write a blog, still that does not 'earn' me a mention in Wikipedia, even if another blog is writing about what I am writing in a blog it is still not notable enough for Wikipedia).
 * Also, I am not saying that the content is not notable, I say that you have to show that the content is notable. That is something different.  If I would say the latter, I would already have outright removed it (from the prose).
 * Regarding all the external links in the last section that I pruned - please look at our external links guideline - we do not have to link to everything about an editor ("Some external links are welcome … but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.") - however, that was what was in the external links section, and, from what I get from your request here, you seem to be wanting for the noted works in the body as well. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it does matter who's misbehavior got the site blocked. It seems pretty obvious from the example provided, this example of an abuse edit, that the misbehavior was from someone trying to get the website into trouble.  I think it matters a) as a basic matter of fairness and b) because it changes the likelihood that the abuse would recur.  Otherwise, I think Dirk's right. --Elvey (talk) 06:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it does not really matter - persistence and disruption is the same, and there is no way of telling if it is someone from an organisation, an SEO theyhired, a 'fan', or a competitor. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

www.examiner.com/article/the-rescue-pledge-a-choice-to-last-a-lifetime
This article provides an informative backstory behind the pro bono project: The RescuePledge. Created through a partnership with San Francisco based company P.L.A.Y. and Atlanta based digital marketing agency Nebe, the story behind The RescuePledge is an external link for the article: User:Robertklein192/Nebo Agency which I cannot save unless this link is whitelisted. Please allow this page to be whitelisted as it provides necessary insight into the company Nebo Agency to paint the most objective and informative picture regarding their work. Thanks! Robertklein192 (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read /Common requests? Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

moneyweek.com/how-to-profit-from-market-turmoil-spread-betting/
In the Spread betting article to include moneyweek.com/how-to-profit-from-market-turmoil-spread-betting/ as a reference for spread betting being a means of hedging in the financial markets. Moneyweek is generally a reliable source but it seems it was spam-linked to many years ago. -- Thincat (talk) 20:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

PS Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:LinkSearch/*.moneyweek.com makes me think the domain is being used by a number of articles in a sensible way. Could the domain block be removed and any possible future spam linking monitored? Or can something else be done? BTW I haven't personally added the current link or any of the others. I was just reading the article and thought the link was relevant and useful. Thincat (talk) 08:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can request full removal at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I considered doing that but I was faced with "Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore" and I am simply not in a position to do that. For all I know the spam linking is ongoing and and has been incessant over the last few years. I had hoped that someone in a knowledgeable position to judge the position of the specific link would also be able to judge the general case. Anyway, if the specific link is thought unsuitable, as seems to be the case, I am happy to accept that the web site is no good. Thincat (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest I am supportive of having the full site unblocked. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking after this? That was pretty massive, and continued later with another set of domains of the same owners being added to the blacklist as well. Granted, it is quite some time ago, but then spammers are often our most 'dedicated editors' (it pays their bills ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

yahoo.uservoice.com/forums/209451
I would like to add this url to the External links at Yahoo! Groups. The url points to the Yahoo! Groups official feedback forum. I was advised to come here at: Village_pump_(technical). Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please clarify how this site is a relevant external link, in particular how it meets WP:ELNO item 1. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

google.co.uk/url?


I am attempting to write an article on Yodle, but a PDF I attempted to use as a reference for their ranking in a list triggered the blacklist. I am not 100% sure why google is blocked, but it may have been blocked for length. Thanks for any help, Mat  ty. 007 19:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is the through-link you got from the google-search, google uses this to track which result you find most interesting, pasting this would increase the page-ranking of the result. As such, this can potentially be abused by spammers to improve the page-ranking and hence is globally blocked.  You can use the proper link (if you post your url here, leaving off the 'http://' of the beginning, it will save, and we will try to help you find the un-redirected link).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * fixed it in this edit, so thanks to both him and you, it's OK now. Mat  ty  .  007  13:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/ideas-impact/bt
Official website of the subject of the article (per External links). --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * BT Centre for Major Programme Management
 * BT Centre for Major Programme Management

Cyberbot II says that the issue has been resolved. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drobson91.htm
The site often has exclusive interviews with IFBB Pros that are not available elsewhere. This in particular was one of many exclusive interviews with Ronnie Coleman that cannot be found on any other site. Unlike other sports, which may be covered on ESPN and then across other media outlets, bodybuilding.com is often the only source available for direct quotes of bodybuilders. This link in particular would be helpful to Ronnie Coleman, and bodybuilding.com links would likely be helpful to all related bodybuilding articles. SanjiSasuke (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessary, is already done (you were even able to link it here in this thread). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Links on the onion routing article
Think these two links need to be whitelisted please:

http://www.onion-router.net/Publications/tor-design.pdf

http://www.onion-router.net/Publications/tor-design.pdf

Looks like they've been picked up a regex in the spam blacklist intended to exclude all .onion (ie. Tor) domains.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are able to link them, so they are not blacklisted (IIRC, they were whitelisted a couple of days ago). Some editors killed the bot that maintains the tag, so probably the bot has not removed it.  I guess you can remove the tag.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Good point, silly me :-) Thanks Jonathan Deamer (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)