MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/03

filmgola.com/movie/
In Swamy Ra Ra, Prema Katha Chitram and many similar pages related to Telugu movies section, i have noticed that the information from this link can be very useful, as it contains reviews from various users around the world who follow telugu films. It gives us the accurate result about how the movie is received by audience and telugu movie critics in general and this information can be very useful under reception section of a telugu movie page. I have noticed the same kind of information is available for many English / Hollywood movies on their pages, but for telugu movies it is not. This is the only site that provides this kind of reliable information for telugu movies. Hence requesting to white list the movie url alone.

I have read the details present in the /Common requests page. Raghusri (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Seen what precipitated this blacklisting (massive sockfarm), and since that was pretty recent (beginning of 2013), . I would suggest to only honour specific links to specific contents that really, cannot be found anywhere else.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Dirk, should this request be moved to, if not, what is the purpose of that section? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally they are kept here for a bit, then moved to and then later archived.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Right, that link just redirects to the home page of the site filmgola.com/home.html where I would have to search to find anything there specific to Swamy Ra Ra. If you want to add a link with specific information about that film for use on the Swamy Ra Ra page only, please submit another link that drills directly to the relevant page on that site. And we want to see that this isn't the only site that you are interested in adding reference links to. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Rather than I adding specific links everytime and that going through the complete process which takes 3-5 weeks, I have asked to whitelist the movie url only(which saves both our effort) because the content available on this site is unique for telugu movies and would add informative value to the telugu movie wiki pages. Since I monitor telugu movie wiki pages, If the sockfarm comes up again, we can anyways blacklist it back. The request is for movie pages alone and not the complete site, so that the unique information present on movie pages on this site alone is rightly used. Since it's been more than one year, I strongly believe that the data present on this site needs to be given another chance, in interest of the content which is available. WBM1058, I am an active contributor to telugu movie pages for many years now and this is not the only one site I am interested in. I am more interested in the content available on this site and it's usefulness to wiki pages. Raghusri (talk) 11:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the /movie/ part of the site was part of the original spam, I am sorry, I am going to ask you to go through the effort of asking for specific links, showing that this site is the only place where that information is. It is too fresh and in my opinion too likely to re-occur.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not in a position to overrule Dirk on this, but just adding some observations. Yes, you do seem to be a good-faith editor with many valuable contributions. Not that any generic link to this site is going to be approved, but I would think that filmgola.com/filmHistory, which actually shows what apparently is a list of all movies on the site, would be a better choice than the generic filmgola.com/movie/ homepage redirect. From that page I can actually find filmgola.com/movie/swamy-ra-ra. As I browse that site, I am annoyed that an audio ad starts playing, unsolicited and unrelated to the page I'm on. The list of movies on that site doesn't seem particularly long. I wonder why you think that Swamy Ra Ra, which already has 23 references, needs any more. I doubt that this site adds much to what's already there. Many of these links are for movie critics' reviews. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wbm1058, I think the suggestion above is to whitelist 'filmgola.com/movie/', so that 'filmgola.com/movie/swamy-ra-ra' can be linked (the technical workings of the whitelist are complicated - any link that fits the whitelist-rule is allowed.


 * I am not disputing that Raghusri is a good-faith editor, I am pretty convinced they are. The problem is that we do have to avoid that we re-allow the abuse - which is here maybe the case.  I would allow the specific link for swamy-ra-ra (though your analysis has me already concerned for that link), but not to other movies without knowing their individual use for the other pages.  Are we sure there are no alternatives?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, right, the problem is that filmgola.com/movie/ is a redirect to filmgola.com/home.html. Ultimately the editor wants to be able to link filmgola.com/movie/swamy-ra-ra so whitelisting filmgola.com/filmHistory would not help at all with that because filmHistory is not part of the string filmgola.com/movie/swamy-ra-ra. Could you whitelist filmgola.com/movie/ followed by one or more characters, so that the bare string going to their homepage remained blacklisted, but anything going to a sub-page with that as the base page was whitelisted? \bfilmgola\.com\/movie\/.+\/\b Not sure about the regex, I think .+ means one or more chars. I bought the O'Reilly book "Mastering Regular Expressions", one of these days maybe I'll take a wikibreak long enough to really read it. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC) On further review of the last comment, I think I misread what Dirk was saying a bit. I don't think the wildcard character matching I just suggested is an option here, but maybe that would be a good option in certain cases? This site is a film review aggregator whose only added value is a "critic pulse" and "public pulse" ratio and percentage. The only reason we would need to cite this source would be if we wanted to report their "critic pulse" or "public pulse" figures in our article. Otherwise they just have external links to 35 critic reviews and we could just link directly to those critic reviews ourselves. I suspect that we already have. As for the original point about Telugu cinema (Tollywood) I'm skeptical that this is the only site that reviews Tollywood productions. In fact, as I said, it links to at least 35 other sites that review such films. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Making only the 'subpages' van /movie/ linkable is trivial (\bfilmgola\/movie\/\w would do the trick, that needs a alphanumerical character after the last /, without that text one would not be able to save the link), the point is that I am not sure if we want that - as you say, it is an aggregator site, which generally means that most of the info is somewhere else already (even if that is a primary source, this 'secondary' source is nothing better than the primary source, maybe even worse). However, I can see that there are cases where there is more info, and I assume that that is true for swamy-ra-ra, but I think the other movies need an independent discussion and evaluation.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wbm1058, Thanks for the suggestion. The above insights are really helpful. Any of the two url's mentioned by you would solve the problem in using the data from this site. Swamy Ra Ra page has 23 references,but there are only 3-4 critic review links. Rest of them are articles written on other websites which are referenced for citing news and other stuff,not reviews. As I am from the place where telugu cinema has it's origins, i can vouch that there are many sites which give reviews but this is telugu cinema's only review aggregator and platform where users can rate the movie. I have seen wiki pages hollywood movies and there are so many references of metacritic and rotten tomatoes are present, hence wanted to use this data on similar lines. Dirk Beetstra, as per the suggestion given by Wbm1058, can you see the feasibility of whitelisting bfilmgola\.com\/movie\/.+\/\b and not the one which I earlier requested. If bfilmgola\.com\/movie\/.+\/\b is not feasible, filmgola.com/filmHistory is good for me,since the data is also present here. As per my analysis, this link filmgola.com/filmHistory was not used earlier by the sockfarm, so hoping there would be no issues with this url. I still believe,if re-occurance of sockfarm is the major issue, we can give it a try and if appears again, it can be black listed. But this data has to be given a change for proper usage. Let me know what you think. Raghusri (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has 32 articles about film-review websites, looking at how external links to these sites are generally handled may be instructive. See Category:Film review websites. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is interesting. I just randomly picked an article, Linda Larkin. The Filmography section uses four general references. All of them simply go to the home page of the site, and not to a page specifically about Linda Larkin.
 * Is this undetected spam? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this undetected spam? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this undetected spam? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this undetected spam? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this undetected spam? Wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * *This is the edit that added those four non-specific ref. links. Good-faith editor active for only a short time. How many more non-specific ref. links to these sites are out there, is there an easy way to find them? Wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I am not able to get much about the spam you are talking about! So, just wanted to know is the reuqest for filmgola.com/filmHistory to be whitelisted considered? because i see no issues with this url. It is a single page and was not part of the original sockfarm. Please consider. Raghusri (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Wbm1058, This is regarding the whitelisting request we discussed earlier. If you feel filmgola.com/filmHistory is good enough to be whitelisted, can you please recommend that. There is no reply since 4 days hence requesting your reply. Looking forward for your response. Raghusri (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't really recommend that at this time. As I said above, /filmHistory isn't really a good option because it is just the portal to their movie review aggregations, and only reference links specific to the particular movie which is the topic of an article should be linked from that article. I thought the alternative "wildcard" regex matching might be an option, but as Dirk said he wants "an independent discussion and evaluation" for each movie, I think you'll have to settle for that for now. I do think Wikipedia should be consistent in this area, and further analysis of links to other movie review sites as I suggested above is merited. Maybe a bot (automated process) could generate some reports on the issue, but that's a longer-term project. For now, if you have several movies on that site that you want to whitelist, I suggest that you put together a batch request similar to the approved request for cbronline.com below. I could format a batch-regex list like I did for that request, if that would help. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your response. Your suggestion would work for me. Below is the batch list. Please let me know if you want me to do anything else to complete the batch request. Once again thanks for your patience and support. Regards, Raghusri (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've taken the liberty of refactoring your comment to separate out your list so that I could edit it. I hope nobody minds. filmgola.com/movie/swamy-ra-ra was on the list twice, so I removed the redundant one. I think you should also include a link to the article for each movie, i.e., the article that you want to add the external link to. I have completed the first six with my suggested movie link; can you finish the rest, following the same pattern as what I did? You will need to look up the movies on Wikipedia to find their titles. Some titles we need to disambiguate with "(film)" or "(2013 film)". Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * filmgola.com/movie/swamy-ra-ra on Swamy Ra Ra
 * filmgola.com/movie/prema-katha-chitram on Prema Katha Chitram
 * filmgola.com/movie/yevadu on Yevadu
 * filmgola.com/movie/svsc on Seethamma Vakitlo Sirimalle Chettu
 * filmgola.com/movie/mirchi on Mirchi (film)
 * filmgola.com/movie/baadshah on Baadshah (2013 film)
 * filmgola.com/movie/legend
 * filmgola.com/movie/gunde-jaari-gallanthayyinde
 * filmgola.com/movie/iddarammayilatho
 * filmgola.com/movie/anamika
 * filmgola.com/movie/balupu
 * filmgola.com/movie/sahasam
 * filmgola.com/movie/baahubali
 * filmgola.com/movie/attarintiki-daredi
 * filmgola.com/movie/rudhramadevi
 * filmgola.com/movie/ramayya-vasthavayya
 * filmgola.com/movie/chandamama-lo-amrutham
 * filmgola.com/movie/race-gurram
 * filmgola.com/movie/vishwaroopam-2
 * filmgola.com/movie/venkatadri-express
 * filmgola.com/movie/autonagar-surya
 * filmgola.com/movie/pandavulu-pandavulu-tummeda
 * filmgola.com/movie/uyyala-jampala
 * filmgola.com/movie/manoharudu


 * To your Reply :


 * filmgola.com/movie/swamy-ra-ra on Swamy Ra Ra
 * filmgola.com/movie/prema-katha-chitram on Prema Katha Chitram
 * filmgola.com/movie/yevadu on Yevadu
 * filmgola.com/movie/svsc on Seethamma Vakitlo Sirimalle Chettu
 * filmgola.com/movie/mirchi on Mirchi (film)
 * filmgola.com/movie/baadshah on Baadshah (2013 film)
 * filmgola.com/movie/legend on Legend
 * filmgola.com/movie/gunde-jaari-gallanthayyinde on Gunde Jaari Gallanthayyinde
 * filmgola.com/movie/iddarammayilatho on Iddarammayilatho
 * filmgola.com/movie/anamika on Anamika
 * filmgola.com/movie/balupu on Balupu
 * filmgola.com/movie/sahasam on Sahasam
 * filmgola.com/movie/baahubali on Baahubali
 * filmgola.com/movie/gabbar-singh-2 on Gabbar Singh
 * filmgola.com/movie/attarintiki-daredi on Attarintiki Daredi
 * filmgola.com/movie/rudhramadevi on Rudhramadevi
 * filmgola.com/movie/ramayya-vasthavayya on Ramayya Vasthavayya
 * filmgola.com/movie/manam on Manam
 * filmgola.com/movie/race-gurram on Race Gurram
 * filmgola.com/movie/vishwaroopam-2 on Vishwaroopam II
 * filmgola.com/movie/venkatadri-express on Venkatadri Express
 * filmgola.com/movie/autonagar-surya on Autonagar Surya
 * filmgola.com/movie/pandavulu-pandavulu-tummeda on Pandavulu Pandavulu Tummeda
 * filmgola.com/movie/uyyala-jampala on Uyyala Jampala
 * filmgola.com/movie/aagadu on Aagadu
 * filmgola.com/movie/manoharudu on I

Please let me know If you want to prepare the batch regex also. Raghusri (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I have some concerns about how you are going to use these external links. If you look at the first six articles–the ones I gave examples for–they each have at most one external link in their External links section, and that link is to the Internet Movie Database site. So it doesn't seem to me that these are going to be accepted as external links, as we generally limit the number of links allowed in that section. They need to be used as a reference to confirm a fact stated in the article to which they are relevant. Now, looking at the pages you have provided that you want to use these on, I see Legend, which is not an article about a movie. The correct answer would be Legend (2014 film). Then there is Anamika, which is a disambiguation page, and we do not cite references on disambiguation pages. I believe the correct answer there would be Anamika (2014 film), but there is also the possibility it could be Anamika (2008 film). I assume that's not what you mean because that one is "Bollywood" and it's also a few years old. Which brings me to another concern. This site seems to be focused on promoting currently released films. What happens after their run in the theatres ends, will the links on this site go dead. We don't want to maintain dead links on Wikipedia. Remember, the purpose of these links should not be to promote that site, but rather to provide informaiton of lasting value to Wikipedia's readers. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Apologies for not using the correct links and thanks for correcting them. I would like to use them in the critical reception section and not as external links. I see this site maintains the database of Telugu and I see that the Film released in 2012 is still available. Ex:- ( http://www.filmgola.com/movie/cgr Cameraman Gangatho Rambabu ). So there will not be any dead links. I believe and would provide lasting value on wikipedia. Raghusri (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I edited Swamy Ra Ra. To activate the link after this is whitelisted, all you would need to do is remove the space from the url. Is that what you have in mind? Please edit my change if you want it to say something different. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edit. This is exactly what I am looking for. Made minor changes to the text you edited. Can you let me know What should I do next to complete the request? Raghusri (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It's been three months since this request was first posted here. I'm hoping that it can now be closed out to help clear the backlog on this page. It will probably be up to Dirk Beetstra or Stifle to handle it as I don't have administrator privileges. Preparing accurate "batch" requests like this takes a good deal of attention to detail, and it doesn't help that we haven't yet developed clear instructions on how to do this, so I'm kind of making this up as we go along (see the discussion at the bottom of the page). To help expedite this I have batched up your request below, with the understanding that you intend to use these reference links as discussed above. Please review the hidden contents inside the collapsed box filmgola.com below, by clicking on [show]. If anything there is not accurate or complete, as you want it, then please do edit the contents of that box itself, and don't worry that you might be "refactoring" my comment. Once you have reviewed the box and it is to your satisfaction, then just post a short note below the box that you have reviewed it and that is your request. Then it will be up to an administrator to fullfill it or not. Note that Chandamama Lo Amrutham is a red link, so I am excluding filmgola.com/movie/chandamama-lo-amrutham/ – 26 links total – Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Released films [15] (no. of critic reviews)


 * filmgola.com/movie/swamy-ra-ra on Swamy Ra Ra (35)
 * filmgola.com/movie/prema-katha-chitram on Prema Katha Chitram (35)
 * filmgola.com/movie/yevadu on Yevadu (33)
 * filmgola.com/movie/svsc on Seethamma Vakitlo Sirimalle Chettu (37)
 * filmgola.com/movie/mirchi on Mirchi (film) (44)
 * filmgola.com/movie/baadshah on Baadshah (2013 film) (44)
 * filmgola.com/movie/gunde-jaari-gallanthayyinde on Gunde Jaari Gallanthayyinde (41)
 * filmgola.com/movie/iddarammayilatho on Iddarammayilatho (40)
 * filmgola.com/movie/balupu on Balupu (41)
 * filmgola.com/movie/sahasam on Sahasam (42)
 * filmgola.com/movie/attarintiki-daredi on Attarintiki Daredi (42)
 * filmgola.com/movie/ramayya-vasthavayya on Ramayya Vasthavayya (38)
 * filmgola.com/movie/venkatadri-express on Venkatadri Express (36)
 * filmgola.com/movie/pandavulu-pandavulu-tummeda on Pandavulu Pandavulu Tummeda (25)
 * filmgola.com/movie/uyyala-jampala on Uyyala Jampala (23)

Upcoming films [11]


 * filmgola.com/movie/legend on Legend (2014 film)
 * filmgola.com/movie/anamika on Anaamika (2014 film) spelled Anamika?
 * filmgola.com/movie/baahubali on Baahubali
 * filmgola.com/movie/gabbar-singh-2 on Gabbar Singh (film)
 * filmgola.com/movie/rudhramadevi on Rudhramadevi
 * filmgola.com/movie/manam on Manam (film)
 * filmgola.com/movie/race-gurram on Race Gurram
 * filmgola.com/movie/vishwaroopam-2 on Vishwaroopam II
 * filmgola.com/movie/autonagar-surya on Autonagar Surya
 * filmgola.com/movie/aagadu on Aagadu
 * filmgola.com/movie/manoharudu on I (film)

'''Admin. note''': I'm not sure whether it's necessary to escape the forward-slashes with back-slashes. Looking at the Spam-whitelist, sometimes I see \/ but the most recent batch-request seems to have worked with just / by itself. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Admin comment: I looked at some of those links proposed, and some are not acceptable. For example, filmgola.com/movie/rudhramadevi and filmgola.com/movie/aagadu (picking two at random) have zero information about critics, nothing that would be suitable for referencing. It isn't obvious how the absence of any of these links is harmful to the Wikipedia project, or how their presence would enhance the project. Therefore, for the time being, this request is . ~Amatulić (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed that. Some of these are still unreleased, with planned release dates months into the future. Obviously there won't be any critics' reviews if no critics have even had a chance to preview the film. I thought we might let these pass in anticipation that there would be critic reviews available in the future, closer to the films' release dates. But this focus on as-yet unreleased films does get back to my concerns about promotional motivations.


 * I took a look at the native-language (Telugu) version of స్వామిరారా and was somewhat surprised to see a less-developed (and unreferenced!) article than the English version Swamy Ra Ra. Curious to know whether many Telugu-speakers are primarily English-writers? Wbm1058 (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not possible to know the notability of unreleased films, and we don't have articles on non-notable films, so it's curious why anyone would request pre-emptive whitelisting. The history of spamming related to this site, combined with requests to white-list essentially empty pages, doesn't make a convincing case that this site is worthy of further consideration. I can't speak for other language Wikipedias; they are all independent and have their own editorial policies and guidelines. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Don't overstate your case. One of the two you picked at random, Aagadu, has 57 references, a lot of references for a film not due out for another three months. There are over a thousand articles in Category:Upcoming films! And this phenomenon of notability of unreleased products is not limited to films, see vaporware. Windows got a ton of press in the years between its initial announcement and the actual release, claims that the product wasn't notable before it was released are not credible. Yes, movie studios' publicity machines work hard to establish notability of their films prior to opening day. As to why anyone would request pre-emptive whitelisting, if you consider that this request has been pending for three months, then from that an editor might believe it reasonable to request whitelisting now, in the hope that it might actually be whitelisted by May. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I split the upcoming films from the released films, so that it would be easy to whitelist the released films now, and wait until later to whitelist the others. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you WBM1058 for the split, I was about to do that. The length of the completion of the request is the precise reason I put the upcoming films in the batch. Also, My intention is to add data when the film is released and the information in the above links are present and not before the film releases and put empty links on articles. I would only use this links after the film releases and not before that. Raghusri (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I had a second look at this, and this has turned into a 'general request' for linking all pages to the corresponding page on filmgola. Following the gist of my initial remark ("I would suggest to only honour specific links to specific contents that really, cannot be found anywhere else."), we are not writing a linkfarm, we are not adding external links because pages have the same subject (and I am generally against honouring whitelist requests for 'yet another external link in the list' (this site does not add significantly over other sites which could (or are established to) be in the list, nor over what the prose of the page already could contain. IF links are to be used as a reference because they contain unique information they can, on a case-by-case basis be whitelisted. Whitelisting every 1-to-1 match for every page on Wikipedia that has such a 1-to-1 match is like de-blacklisting.

So therefore: - please open new requests for those specific cases where it needs to be used as a reference. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

ezinearticles.com/?Why-Jamaica-Is-One-of-the-Best-Family-Vacation-Destinations&id=8246129


My name is Eddrick Trumpler and I am writing to request that the url above be removed from blacklist. I am the author of this article and I was attempting to cite reference to it but discovered it was on blacklist. I would greatly appreciate it be removed.Jwunmalumni (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * as pure spam; user blocked for being a spam only account. MER-C 02:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/article/cross-platform-publisher-star-arcade-brings-mobile-social-gamers-together
I couldn't find the reason why Examiner has been blaclisted in the first place, so I didn't want to try to whitelist the whole site. Instead, I would really want to use this particular article from Examiner on forthcoming article about Star Arcade. It has a good interview about the company as well as some general information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlatto (talk • contribs)
 * That article is still at AfC, so for that I would put this until it has moved into mainspace.  Examiner.com was blacklisted as it is a common spam-target, and it was spammed.  Generally, the information on the site is available elsewhere as well - have you considered what is written about examiner.com in /Common requests?  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * AFC was declined, so . MER-C 02:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

www.bimeanalytics.com
I would like to write an article about bime analytics, but their website seems to be blocked. I wasn't able to find out why it was blacklisted. If it was whitelisted I could use the pages to justify certain elements of the article (customers, press). There's not much I can add, it's simply the domain name of the notable company. In the past years the company has numerous recognition appearances in press. nephelai13 (talk) 16:30, 07 February 2014 (CET)
 * (1) We're not whitelisting the entire site, and (2) you will need to have the draft before you come here so that we can assess its suitability. . MER-C 03:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

1337day.com
I can guess why this site is in the blacklist. I want to write an article about the history of the Ij3ct0r team and about this site. I need the following links: 1337day.com 1337day.com/freelance 1337day.com/pentest 1337day.com/hash 1337day.com/team. Could you please make these links available for english page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1337day, for russian page: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/1337day and for my sandbox? --Bugtrack (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your subject doesn't appear to be notable, and as such, there's no compelling reason to whitelist pages. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * per above. MER-C 03:12, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

pincodeofindia.com
Dear reviewer some one has submitted pincodeofindia.com url in External Reference of Postal Index Number page of Wiki for mony time hence this site is gets black listed. But there isnt any activity like spamming on site. We request to remove this site from Black list or to add it in White list this will great help from Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.14.38.147 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: The same IP submitted a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist for the same site, that was declined. -- S M S  Talk 16:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * here too. The requester hasn't provided a specific page to consider for whitelisting, hasn't indicated in which article the link would be used, and hasn't explained how whitelisting would benefit the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

particular (now dead link to original page to examiner.com), using archive.org
Particular item under discussion:

General Base URLs under discussion:



The above are the BASE URLs in question. See details below.

The Examiner was formerly a news outlet. The original link and citation is a dead link, but the unique original article can be reached using archive.org.

Archive.org is structured to re-duplicate the original archived item's URL, and that triggers the wikipedia blacklist for examiner.com EVEN THOUGH THIS LINK IS NOT TO THE BLACKLIST DOMAIN.

The wikipedia article that it is desirable to use the ARCHIVE.ORG link would use the link and citation, but the blacklist software prevents the migration to a archive link that contains the Examiner URL.

The article and section of intended use can be found in the section: Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney.

The benefit to Wikipedia, is that this archived article is unique, and a useful summary of a former U.S. presidential candidate's political views.

Please revise the blacklist to allow archived articles to appear on references, when the base URL (archive.org in this case) is NOT the blacklisted item in question. Alternatively, please allow this particular URL, as shown at the top of this section/request that is hosted on archive.org, but contains "examiner.com" in the url.

Thank you. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * . Editors are not permitted to circumvent the blacklist by attempting to link articles through other sites, including redirector sites and archiving sites like archive.org. That's why you can't do it. Everything is working as intended.


 * Furthermore, Mitt Romney's political views have been covered by numerous reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In light of that, there is no valid reason to white-list an archived copy of an examiner.com article that basically re-hashes what has been widely covered elsewhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

spartucusjones.hubpages.com/hub/15-Champions-of-The-Rock-Roll-Tag-Team-Division
The page "Editing Power duo" needs a citation to be added to it. I found this page spartacusjones.hubpages.com to be the only suitable article which has a direct reference to one of the bands mentioned on the page. There does not appear to be anything on the article which would make it unsuitable for this site. 90.214.134.239 (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC) 19:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . This is somebody's anonymous blog. Please see WP:RS and WP:ELNO. We might consider an exception if this blogger was well known as a reviewer of rock bands, but it's hard to justify seeing that he has almost zero coverage and about 250 followers. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Examiner article about OWS

 * examiner.com/article/occupy-wall-street-returns-2014
 * examiner.com/article/occupy-wall-street-returns-2014

This is an opinion piece by an OWS organizer that would be helpful on an articule about upcoming OWS protests. I would like to be able to cite this piece on the page Worldwide wave of action]. Juno (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * . Self-published, opinion piece, and a non-notable author's opinion. I don't see a reason to white-list it with so many strikes against it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Talking birds
The page I would like unblocked is http://www.XXXX.com/list_6812069_birds-human-speech-north-america.html for the XXXX substitute ehow I am trying to use the page to add a verifiable source to several areas of the article Talking birds. The single page looks ok to me, it seems as if wikipedia is blocking the whole Ehow site, but I do not know the history of this.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * www.ehow.com/list_6812069_birds-human-speech-north-america.html
 * www.ehow.com/list_6812069_birds-human-speech-north-america.html
 * . It's a tertiary source that cites other sources for its information. In this case it lists three secondary sources in the references section. It's far better for the article on Wikipedia to use those secondary sources instead of citing eHow. If the sources aren't online, then you need to visit a library to look them up. That's how finding reliable sources works. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. I'll use my University data-base to search for the original articles on-line.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

muumuu house

 * muumuuhouse.com/mg.poetry2.html

good reference for poet's work to establish notability. Duckduckstop (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * . Re-publishing someone's poetry doesn't establish notability. Notability, in Wikipedia context, means significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Please see Notability and Notability (people) for further guidance. WP:42 gives a decent, if imperfect, overview of the inclusion criteria. Publishing poetry isn't coverage about the author. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Weightloss-factor.com/bmr-calculator
This is a BMR calculator that uses the Harris Benedict Equation. I believe it would be a helpful addition to "basal metabolic rate" as well as "Harris Benedict Equation"
 * weightloss-factor.com/bmr-calculator
 * , because many alternatives exist that aren't blacklisted, for example http://manytools.org/handy/bmr-calculator/ ~Amatulić (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hubpages.com
There has been a request to whitelist on Talk:HubPages to verify the request for updating data about the company. Seems reasonable-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  23:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem, but we need specific links, we are not going to whitelist the whole domain so it can be used throughout Wikipedia (it would simply negate Whitelisting, that a company is notable does not mean that we need links to them everywhere) - an about page or index.htm as 'official link' (see /Common requests), and other specific links to articles which are deemed necessary as references (with where they will be used as references). Leave off the http:// and you will be able to save those links here.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * sorry, i thought the block could be lifted for specific article pages. will find out what the url is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll shortly be closing this request as not done; please either add the specific pages you want or file a new request. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No response =>. MER-C 03:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

www.vallenajerilla.com/legadomedievalnajera/librosbibliotecasnajera.htm
I would like to add this Spanish-language page (title: Libros y librerías en la Rioja altomedieval) as a reference to Visigothic script. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * - Visigothic script was a type of medieval script that originated in the Visigothic kingdom in Hispania. I don't speak but very limited Spanish, but Google Chrome translates the lead of your proposed whitelist-link as "Lugar meeting and crossing the Rioja takes his strong personality in fighting and border tensions. Rioja still awaits a full historiographical work unveils the intricacies of your situation, the currents that rocked and small or large events configured as part of the balance in the complex world of the Christian kingdoms of the North." This page talks about fighting and religion, which are not calligraphy-related topics. Lower down there is a section that might possibly be relevant: " Who does read proficiently should learn to write. Here the problem is more enredoso: there are at least two different types of writing, cursive, lIamada own documents because books left in the eighth century to use this spelling, and sitting or libraria called. Quite different in origin and in its layout, the first is characterized by continuity and interlock, the second to be released, even if in some cases-ligatures; cheesy going only based on a very general idea of horizontal space, the libraria in the art of line or a horizontal pattern on the resting or regularly support letters. Again and require means and procedures to some extent divergent. Many notaries, used to compose and write documents, are not able to copy text that has quietly put it in letter books, perhaps the reverse is not so universal. The copyist is a specialist in the bookish writing. In addition to being a seasoned graphic work, must possess certain qualities of attention, mindfulness and observation to make absolutely the delicate task of transposing a text elsewhere. But before he has had, by himself or by another, who have the right materials: ink manufacture, pick and sharpening pen, preparing the parchment. The latter technique has two different phases: the development of the skin making it suitable for writing, and the construction of escriptorio material itself." Maybe the translation is just too poor, but I don't see much coherence here. Unless you can explain the relevance to the article giving specific text that you want to cite, I'm inclined to recommend denial of this request. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

cypress.com

 * www.cypress.com/?id=1573
 * www.cypress.com/?id=2232
 * www.cypress.com/?id=2233
 * www.cypress.com/?id=1353&rID=37442
 * www.cypress.com/?id=1353&rID=37442

I would the four links above whitelisted for the page: List of common microcontrollers. I understand that Cypress have behaved badly in the past and should stay blacklisted as a site, however, those links point to specific product pages that seem legit to me (and are relevant to the article). 00prometheus (talk) 17:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Requester only has 15 mainspace edits to non-semiconductor-relted topics. Seems good-faith, but more contributions would be reassuring.
 * This article was tagged by the Blacklisted-links bot. Three of four Cypress links remain blacklisted; one was whitelisted: \bwww\.cypress\.com/\?id=2233\b – approval discussion 12 January 2011
 * Denials: 11 May 2013, 18 July 2012, 16:51, 2 June 2011, 17 August 2010
 * Wikipedia is WP:NOTCATALOG. The clear consensus of administrators here is that we don't want to whitelist all four of these links. However, the decision to whitelist one of the four seems arbitrary to me. Why that particular product?
 * Recommended solution – change the single whitelist entry from www.cypress.com/?id=2233 to www.cypress.com/?id=2&source=header. This is the Products page, on which links to all four products are easily found. - Wbm1058 (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The one particular link was requested for another page, not the same page as the current request. I would consider to add the suggested id=2-page .. can the requester comment on that solution, please.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noted that those 4 inline external links may not be necessary on List of common microcontrollers, PSoC can for sure be internally linked. The others do not need the link to the product either.  All should however be sourced to an independent source.  I suggest to remove all 4 links (replace with wikilinks where possible).  (similar is true for the rest of the document, there are a couple more which one could question in a similar fashion - if they are notable enough to be mentioned, they should have independent references, not primary only).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch of the article PSoC. We should replace the four specific inline links with a single more generic ref. link at the bottom of the article. www.cypress.com/psoc/ is a more specific page than www.cypress.com/?id=2&source=header which still covers all four products. We should use that instead, and it can be used on both this page and on PSoC. Uggh, yea because the PR-oriented editors have an overtendency to link to primary sources like the site of the company paying them to edit, they place a burden on independent volunteers to supplement their promotional link refs. with independent link refs. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: hardly a burden - if it is only primary sourced, and the company is a redlink, I have no problem with plain deletion. Same happens sometimes with their products (marginally notable company with product that no-one talks about, or general a product that no-one talks about).  If those products were spammed, there is often a reason why it needed to be spammed: no-one else is talking about it...  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

other cypress.com links
There are more cypress.com links around, below a list with recommendations - some should go, others
 * cypress.com/?id=6&source=header (about page) as replacement for the official homepage in Cypress Semiconductor - WP:OFFICIAL, but the homepage would allow everything to be linked, see /Common requests.
 * cypress.com/psoc - on PSoC - WP:OFFICIAL
 * cypress.com/westbridge - on West Bridge - WP:OFFICIAL
 * cypress.com/?rID=34986 is a reasonable primary source on T. J. Rodgers (but if a replacement is possible ...) - a replacement for the other one should be possible - it is a reward granted by another organisation, always better to find some news-item for that than an internal piece. Note that the third reference is not supporting the content at all and should be removed.
 * The link on Warp (Cypress) (used twice) is dead, both should be removed, the reference may be replaceable with something independent. The article is further not referenced, product is not sold anymore by Cypress if I believe the sentence that ís referenced.

See this as an extension of the above, could be handled in one go. Please discuss. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Confirmation that Warp is dead www.cypress.com/?docID=4204 www.cypress.com/?id=4&rID=31774 – yeah, we should be leery of pages ending in ?id=xxx that stuff isn't very permanent. From a company's standpoint all their products are "notable" as long as they are up for sale. As soon as the product is dropped it's not notable anymore. Unless it truly was a milestone product, then they proudly boast how they have been leaders ever since the introduction of "Revolutionary Product". "Failed Me-too Product" becomes invisible. Just speaking generically here of course. Then we have the burden of putting it up for deletion. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

museomagazine.com/DAN-GRAHAM
I saw that that the Wikipedia article for the magazine had been deleted, with the mention that it had been part of a spam campaign. The article from the magazine is a specific, relevant and encyclopedic interview with Dan Graham, which I had attempted to add to his article as part of expanding his biography. As the link was tagged as being on the blacklist, the reference is still there with the link removed. This article would benefit from access to this link, as would the article for Winfield Township, New Jersey, where he had resided. I'm not sure that there is any residual issue with the website in its entirety and I would argue that the entire site should be removed from the blacklist, but for the purposes of this request I only seek to have access to this one page. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * protection filter: museomagazine.com is not on the local blacklist, but rather triggered by an item on the global blacklist: \bmuseomagazine\.com\b
 * recommend whitelisting – seems like a reasonable request from one of our most active editors, who has been given a boatload of barnstars. Provided that we are able to locally whitelist to override an item in the global blacklist, do it. - Wbm1058 (talk) 18:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

archive.is/T5OAy
This is an archive of https://bancdebinary.com/terms-of-use/ for which the Internet Archive and WebCite don't work correctly. I want to (continue to) use it in the Banc De Binary article. — rybec   20:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

There was an RFC in which it was decided that archive.is should be blacklisted. — rybec   22:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * These are not contradictory concepts. Archive.is was blacklisted primarily because an unapproved bot was adding piles of rubbish links to it. I think whitelisting this is OK. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Per MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2013, this site is not yet blacklisted, and won't be until a bot conducts a graceful removal. Until then, technically, whitelisting isn't needed yet. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

moneymorning.com

 * I'm not entirely sure why moneymorning.com was blacklisted, but I want to use the following article from it. Oh ffs I can't post the link i want to whitelist because its blacklisted! wtf! Let me see what I can do here: moneymorning.com/2013/01/31/paul-krugman-may-be-the-worlds-last-flat-earth-economist/
 * I'm not entirely sure why moneymorning.com was blacklisted, but I want to use the following article from it. Oh ffs I can't post the link i want to whitelist because its blacklisted! wtf! Let me see what I can do here: moneymorning.com/2013/01/31/paul-krugman-may-be-the-worlds-last-flat-earth-economist/

It should be fairly obvious that its not spam..

Fresheneesz (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Oct 2 . The specific link may be fine, however.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Second note: now I see a second request below here regarding Agora websites, and that leads me to think there the spamming did not stop completely, and there may be active editors around. May I ask you where you want to use this link, Fresheneesz?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Oi, I see now that this can be misread - both requests are legitimate, the spamming seems to be by others. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agora Inc. seems to be back using paid advocates to spam Wikipedia as they did back in 2008. I would advice extreme scrutiny, and a thorough search for alternatives before allowing their links.  -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 07:16, 28 November 2013


 * Maybe it's not spam but it is an opinion piece (i.e., something that belongs on the editorial page). That should be obvious from just the title. Wikipedia is generally in the business of publishing facts. I'd like to know what article(s) you want to use it in, and what statements you want to make that you need this reference for citation. Thank you, Wbm1058 (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

www.lesbelleslettres.com/

 * Les Belles Lettres needs a link to the company's official homepage. In addition, for referencing purposes, it would be desirable to be able to link to www.lesbelleslettres.com/CUF/ (point currently made with mention of subpage but without link) and to www.lesbelleslettres.com/livre/?GCOI=22510100663530 (point can only be supported by publisher's description of book). Yngvadottir (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Les Belles Lettres needs a link to the company's official homepage. In addition, for referencing purposes, it would be desirable to be able to link to www.lesbelleslettres.com/CUF/ (point currently made with mention of subpage but without link) and to www.lesbelleslettres.com/livre/?GCOI=22510100663530 (point can only be supported by publisher's description of book). Yngvadottir (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Ai, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Oct 2 - looking into this, I see some accounts who are questionable here. It looks like Agora Inc. has returned to spamming (I just encountered another, similar request regarding Agora Inc.).
 * Notwithstanding, if this article is notable, it may need its homepage whitelisted and needed references whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know nothing about Agora, but Les Belles Lettres is definitely notable. There is also Collection Budé, which might not be entirely justified as an article on the main line of books published by the company, but which is currently defaced by an automated tag because it includes links to the company website. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, Agora Inc. was caught spamming in 2008, and as it turns out, they are back spamming (maybe indirectly through paid advocates/SEO companies). It strongly looks like the article in question, Les Belles Lettres, was also created by one of their paid advocates, and edited further by paid advocates (see Special:Contributions/Kipthoot, Special:Contributions/Srivatsan m, Special:Contributions/Tk icepick, and many others.  The article needs extreme scrutiny for promotional language.  I advice extreme caution with the use of material from Agora Inc.
 * Collection Budé needs a cleanup (does not seem to have the Agora paid editing problem, though), not sure if the links all need to be there (those listings are encyclopedic enough to be incorporated, though then need to be referenced, maybe to the same site, but preferably to an independent source). Please file a separate request for that.
 * I would agree to linking to the two documents, and likely to their about.htm ('official link' in the external link section, avoiding their landing page per /Common requests). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC) (adapted, did not look all the way back, strikeout of part of comment --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC))

moneyweek.com/brian-hunter-from-hero-to-zero-in-two-years/
This link is used as reference [5] in the wikipedia article entitled "List of trading losses" and is triggering a "blacklisted link" warning. See also request 1.13 above Mdutch2001 (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: "request 1.13 above" refers to special:permalink/583906742, which was denied per /Common requests. Wbm1058 (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Brian Hunter (trader) also uses this reference, as well as List of trading losses. The bio has several other references that might confirm the same facts. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * List of trading losses – replaced blacklisted link with alternative source - Wbm1058 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Brian Hunter (trader) – removed blacklisted external link
 * Recommend denial, unless the requestor has specific information from this link that they want to cite. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

www.ascendercorp.com/index.html
For use on the main Ascender Corporation page, per the general exceptions clause. An alternative to be whitelisted would be www.ascendercorp.com/about/, but its focus on the merger (rather than the site itself) might not be the best, and I see nothing particularly spammy on the front page. — trlkly 04:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * www.ascendercorp.com/index.html redirects to www.ascendercorp.com which is on the global blacklist. So www.ascendercorp.com/about/ will probably have to be it. That page does talk more about the company, the subject of the article, than its products. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

dyingscene.com/news/glasseater-announce-reunion-show/
This article contains information about the reunion of the band Glasseater. I've added the information to their page and I'd like to add this article as a reference.

Strummer25 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * reasonable request to cite otherwise uncited information. I added the link to the article, to activate just remove the space after //. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

dyingscene.com/news/mathias-farm-talks-about-new-millencolin-album/
This article contains information about the band Millencolin working on a new album. I've added the information to their page and I'd like to add this article as a reference.

Strummer25 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * reasonable request to cite otherwise uncited information. I added the link to the article, to activate just remove the space after //. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

www.indianetzone.com/28/ajitesh_bandopadhyay_indian_theatre_personality.htm
There are few web resources for information on the great actor-director Ajitesh Bandopadhyay of the Bengali stage of the 1950s-1970s; and this one is among them. Very hard to reference the Ajitesh page unless this is allowed to be used as a reference. Naturally, no request to unblock the whole domain or any subdomain in full - only this one page. Thanks. Gassing (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ajitesh Bandopadhyay is a one line unreferenced stub created October 2013
 * Gassing has only 8 edits, but...
 * Seems like a good-faith request. Recommend whitelisting. I added the link to the article, to activate just remove the space after //. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/article/alabama-bureaucrats-squander-away-alabama-state-defense-force
I'm editing Alabama State Defense Force to include information about the unit's stand-down. This hasn't been widely reported in the media, and the Examiner piece is one of two articles on it. It's also the better-written one (the other is a letter to the editor of a paper) SSaint04 (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have. As mentioned, this hasn't been widely reported, and there's really nothing but the Examiner article as a primary source. The other article I have found cites the Examiner article. It's not like the stand-down isn't happening. I know it is. I am (was?) a member of the ASDF. SSaint04 (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Loosing Our State Defense Force Wbm1058 (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Proposed Law could civilianize Alabama SDF Wbm1058 (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Alabama Senate Bill 278 (primary source) Wbm1058 (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ‘Sovereign Citizen’ Couple Resigns from Alabama State Defense Force - where these start becoming controversial. Wbm1058 (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Arresting Developments Wbm1058 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The 21st-Century Militia: State Defense Forces and Homeland Security Heritage Foundation. Wbm1058 (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Of the links you posted, the first is the "letter to the editor" I mentioned. It is NOT a properly cited article, nore does it address the actual issues. The rest of the articles you cited have nothing to do with the stand-down. They have to do with other aspects of the ASDF:
 * SB 278 was a bill passed last year that just modernized the mission. It's what led to the stand-down, it does not reference the stand-down.
 * The urban legend about the president threatening governors with arrest is not the issue.
 * Nor is the "sovereign citizen" couple that resigned... three years ago.SSaint04 (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct, not all the links I posted are directly applicable. I was searching the internet for the most relevant links that I could find, and some just provide some broader-context background of some possible "bigger-picture" issues. Some of it may carry no weight in the decision here. Here's my take so far (I'm new at this sort of analysis). The author of this piece seems to be a citizen journalist. Alas, Reliable sources doesn't have the word "citizen" in it. Neither does Verifiability. This information is important, and we do want to get it published, but we also have to evaluate the source's reputation for checking the facts. Ideally we generally would prefer a report from a newspaper published in Alabama, or a report from any recognized Alabama media including TV and radio. Have they all been silent on this significant news? Lacking a good secondary source for the stand-down like an Alabama newspaper, we can accept a primary source for stating basic facts like the date of the stand-down. Did the state put out a press release announcing it? Did the state send out letters notifying the members of the ASDF? We could use the letter as a primary source, and it would be OK to redact (black out) the name and address of the recipient of the letter. I also note that this source expresses opinions and we probably should limit our citations of the source to just stating facts. Opinions would need to be attributed to the person giving them. I'm not sure what the administrators here will decide. Perhaps a confirming discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard would be helpful, see above. This is just the opinion of one editor. I may try to dig harder on the newspaper and TV station sites. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This has not been reported in any mainstream news outlet. The ASDF was jokingly referred to as "Alabama's best kept secret." Not publicized, not really supported by the ALARNG. There is a stand-down order, issued by the Adjutant General of Alabama. However, it was not published publicly, and only distributed through the chain of command. It's labelled "FOUO" (For Official Use Only), which means I can't upload it here.SSaint04 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, State adjutant general, Alabama Military Department. Sigh, the sorry state of Alabama newspapers: The Huntsville Times is just published thrice-weekly, as is the largest newspaper in the state, The Birmingham News. They are owned by the same company and share the same website, http://al.com. When I search their sites for reports on "Defense" I find a lot of stories about football. Jimmy Wales has talked about some sort of wiki-journalist initiative, but I don't know that much has come of the suggestion. There is Wikinews. See n:Portal:Alabama. Some of the "latest" news there is rather stale. I don't know whether Wikinews is considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. Given this sad state of affairs, my desire is to whitelist this, even if it means invoking WP:IAR. I suppose fortunately it's not classified information, so you didn't need to travel overseas before revealing the news. – Wbm1058 (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

two gayot.com links
Please note the history here — gayot.com is a food, wine, and hospitality website formerly associated with the Michelin Guide, that split off under the ownership of André Gayot. Although the site itself is a legitimate publication and arguably notable and significant, its usefulness on Wikipedia was compromised and the site blacklisted when editors presumed to be the blusher added many external links and references using various sockpuppets. Subsequent whitelist requests by the site publisher were denied. However, prior to blacklisting, a number of legitimate editors had added citations to the various articles and awards on the site. These citations were entirely legitimate (though, like all citations and links, subject to editorial discretion as to their reliability and relevance) but for the subsequent discovery of COI editing. We could use some clarification as to whether prior links to a URL that is later involved in spamming may be maintained, or alternately whether the blacklist is a "death sentence" for any existing links to the site. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * gayot.com in the article André Gayot — valid official link per WP:EL. The link in question remains in the article, but an editor objects to use of a template parameter to hide a spam notice from main page of the article unless the link is whitelisted.
 * gayot.com/restaurants/features/nouvellecuisine.html in article Nouvelle Cuisine for similar reasons. The article contains a valid supporting citation (as opposed to a primary citation) to a significant article on the subject of the cited facts, but editors are apparently insisting that the citation footnote should not actually link to the article it cites unless white-listed. The link in question used to be part of the citation, but editors deleted it because the site it is on was blacklisted.


 * Please provide an about.htm or index.htm (see /Common requests) for the first. Question: is gayot.com the direct official homepage of André Gayot, or of a product of him .. ??
 * No, blacklisting is not a 'death sentence', we have a whitelist exactly for the reasons you mention. The blacklist is to stop the spamming, pushing when other methods are deemed insufficient (or, better, have shown to be insufficient - but when we are talking sock-farms, other methods are simply insufficient).  Of course, although previous additions may not have been spam, a consideration whether the link is really appropriate and/or suitable should be made (as you do for the two requests here).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This site does not appear to have an about, index, or other similar landing page. Is there some reason why it's better to point to a random subpage rather than the main page as we do for other articles? It's not a spam link. If blacklisting is not a death sentence are you saying that editors were wrong to scrub the encyclopedia of links to the site? May I simply restore the various links that were not added by the spammer? If you need a complete list I can see about making one. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If we whitelist 'gayot.com', it simply negates the blacklist or allow the homepage to be linked everywhere. That is why we generally suggest an about-page if the official page is needed somewhere - like www.gayot.com/aboutus/main.html.  As the aim is to have a link to identify the subject, that will suffice.  Yes, we do link to the base domain on other pages, but if something gets spammed and needs these drastic measures to stop it, one needs sometimes to find alternatives that do not allow continuance.
 * Having blacklisted links on a page is a problem that needs to be resolved - as editors don't recognise that (you normally don't notice when editing a page), it is often prudent to remove all to avoid those problems (if they need to be there, someone will notice the removal and seek resolution). Of course, the best would be to notify editors that pages they have on their watchlist or are editing regularly have blacklisted links on them, and let them decide whether those links should go or be whitelisted (or whatever faith).  That means either tagging, or 'spamming' (random) editors who may know more about the page.  We now have a bot leaving those notifications, which I think is a better solution than blanket removal (and I don't know whether earlier removed links were actually spammed, or just precautionary removed).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe gayot.com/aboutus/whoweare.html is even better? There are a couple of 'about' pages listed at the bottom of the pages.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the whoweare.html page works. But is there anything wrong with just leaving the link to gayot.com as-is? The problem seems to be a shortcoming in the blacklist / whitelist functionality, not anything wrong with linking to the site. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. As long as nothing related to the external link gets edited, it is fine, but say that someone 'breaks' the page (forgets a closing halfway the page, e.g.), removes the link or vandalises (blanks parts of) the page so the link is not there anymore.  A next editor (or a bot, notifying a problem with the page) comes and does something unrelated.  At that point, the edit that broke the page can not be undone, reverted or whatever, because that, formally, would result in the addition of a blacklisted link.  This happened to me in April, where I had to use emergency whitelisting, reverting, de-whitelisting and opening/responding to a request.  It is better that it gets properly resolved now by someone familiar with the page where the 'offending' links are.  Some cases are obvious (like here, though I doubt that this is the personal homepage of the subject, I think it is the homepage of their company and hence I question if it belongs on the wikipage of the person - WP:ELNO, indirect).
 * If you have significant reason to believe that the site is good and the spamming has stopped, then de-blacklisting is probably the best, otherwise seek for proper links and get them whitelisted (note that I just blocked an editor who spammed for 3 months (including being blocked and spamming again), who got his links blacklisted 5 months ago after they returned, and who is still at it today - some do not get the message). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/article/reaper-miniatures-bones-kickstarter-changes-the-industry
The reference is wanted in the article on Reaper Miniatures. While Examiner is listed among the Self-written commission-paying sites that suffer requests that are often denied, the autor Michael Tresca is an experienced author on tabletop gaming, a field that get little coverage in mainstream media, and he bring some outside light on a sentral theme in the article on the company's recent history which is not sufficiently covered elsewhere. While his analysis can be discussed he brings some interesting information to light. I'm not affiliated with the writer nor the site. Oslomin (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oslomin seems good-faith; 48 article-space edits on Miniature wargaming-related topics. I wouldn't expect to find mainstream media coverage, but isn't there any coverage in wargaming magazines or on The Wargamer (website) http://www.wargamer.com/? The article is over-reliant on primary sources. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wbm1058. Unfortunately, while The Wargamer might be central for the computer wargaming genre, It could hardly be considered relevant in covering miniature wargaming, even though there are a few articles on the topic by Scott Parrino and Fred Feddeck. Now that you mention it, the wargaming magazines category could do with a few more articles. Oslomin (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

www.myretrotv.com
This is the official website of Retro Television Network and I can't see any reason why it should be blacklisted from the article on same. 63.196.158.105 (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The link was blacklisted after extensive spamming - Have you read /Common requests, we do not whitelist the whole domain, please find an about page. Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2008 – Wbm1058 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This user's 36 edits between April 12–14, 2009 precipitated the blacklisting, and here is their rationale for their edits. It was not a major project to revert these edits, which typically added the sentence "This series is currently broadcast nationally by Retro Television www.myretrotv.com." He has a point. The version he edited also had this line in it: "All five seasons are also available for free viewing on Hulu.com." Such adverts had been in the article at least since July 2008, and in spite of his April 15, 2009 protest, the other adverts were not removed until July 12, 2009.
 * As of February 2008, NBC has recently begun posting the first season of the A-team online for free with the option to download (pay for download). Netflix also has most episodes from seasons 1-5 available for instant viewing. The first two seasons are also available for free viewing on Hulu.com. 01:22, 27 July 2008
 * I changed the number of seasons available for vewing on hulu.com from 2 to 3 because this has become so 01:44, 28 November 2008
 * Corrected number of seasons available on Hulu. 13:50, 13 March 2009
 * Removed adverts - we don't need to list every site that has the series available 17:22, 12 July 2009
 * These other editors were not singularly focused on adding adverts for all of RTV's programs. Given that the spammers' edits were arguably good-faith based on what appears to have been acceptable practice at the time (until July 2009), and the site has been blacklisted for four years after the first 3-day editing episode, I think the url deserves a second chance.
 * If the blacklisting is not lifted, then I suggest whitelisting www.myretrotv.com/affiliates--schedules.html for use on the article List of Retro Television Network affiliates. – Wbm1058 (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

www.tvrage.com
I understand that the website was blacklisted due to regular editors, but I am only requesting that a single article be whitelisted. The interview is written by Kimberly Ainsworth, who is on the website's news staff. That interview would help me in the article I am currently writing, Zachariah (Supernatural). A link to the interview can be found at www.tvrage.com/news/6702/exclusive-a-conversation-with-kurt-fuller-part-1-of-2.

Thanks. Ω  pho   is  23:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Recommend whitelisting of www.tvrage.com/news/6702/exclusive-a-conversation-with-kurt-fuller-part-1-of-2. A reasonable request, and this may also help resolve the This biographical article needs additional citations for verification tag on Kurt Fuller. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

mangauk.com
They are a distributor for anime in the UK. I need them to source releases. Please only whitelist the products (www.mangauk.com/item.php?s=), everything else is useless for Wikipedia. If ranges can't be whitelisted, I only need these three links (www.mangauk.com/item.php?s=code-geass-lelouch-of-the-rebellion-complete-season-1-blu-ray), (www.mangauk.com/item.php?s=code-geass-lelouch-of-the-rebellion-complete-season-2-dvd), (www.mangauk.com/item.php?s=code-geass-lelouch-of-the-rebellion-complete-season-2-blu-ray)  DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 05:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See Manga UK – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See MangaUK Blog (cont'd) – WikiProject Spam report. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

tutorialspoint.com
Looks like this site has been blocked at wikipedia but I found its useful site having tons of tutorials which is really useful for the community. I'm regular user of the site and when I found it blocked at wikipedia, it really shocked knowing that it has been put under spam filter at wikipedia. Kindly check the website content and do the justice to give it some respect and work done by the owner of the site who is providing free tutorial with a professional quality. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.135.7.2 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 8 January 2014
 * What Wikipedia article(s) do you think will benefit from links being added to this site? Stifle (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * . No response, plus we're not whitelisting the entire site. MER-C 05:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

spruethmagers.com
Sprueth Magers is a German commercial art gallery. The gallery represents more than 30 notable artists who have a Wikipedia article. The website has images of artworks by these artists that supplement these articles that have few or no free images. The only article to use a link to spruethmagers.com at this time is Andreas Gursky Since Sprueth Magers is an official representative for the artist, linking to spruethmagers.com is preferrable to linking to other sources as it can be difficult to ascertain that if there are no copyright issues with sites that are not direcly affiliated with the artist. Michiel Duvekot (talk)&#124;(contribs) 16:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * spruethmagers is on the global blacklist. This request is a de facto request for removal from that blacklist; such requests should be filed at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But it might be possible to add www.spruethmagers.com/artists/andreas_gursky to the whitelist, as this is linked from Andreas Gursky. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The whole site is whitelisted on de.wikipedia.
 * Noting that the site was blacklisted to a, likely coi, editor who added this to many pages on many wikis, suggesting promotional edits to promote the artists
 * Note that it is not really an argument that linking to other sites is not preferred (well, actually, one has to be very careful as it may simply not be allowed).
 * For Andreas Gursky this seems to be 'his official website' (own domain does not seem to exist, this is his official representative, making it de facto the most important external website of the artist).
 * Question - do the other artist, in general, have their own websites (own domain!), which on their own link to this website?  If not, then whitelisting the whole site could be considered (which then would make a strong case for global de-listing), if yes, then specific whitelisting may be better/sufficient.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't say if artists in general have their own website. Some don't. Gursky doesn't seem to have one. Of the artists represented by Sprueth Magers (they represent more than 50), I can't tell with certainty which ones don't have their own website, but a quick scan gives me Siegfried Anzinger, Keith Arnatt,  Richard Artschwager, Bernd and Hilla Becher, John Bock, George Condo, Walter Dahn, Tea Jorjadze, Peter Fischli & David Weiss, Gary Hume, Axel Kasseböhmer, Karen Kilimnik, Joseph Kosuth, Louise Lawler, Robert Morris (artist), Reinhard Mucha, Nina Pohl, Andreas Schulze (bildender Künstler),Alexandre Singh and Rosemarie Trockel. Michiel Duvekot (talk)&#124;(contribs)  20:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

www.norm.org
This website is used in pages Foreskin restoration and Restoration device. More precisely, we can see inside links to :
 * the whole website (twice)
 * the page index.html
 * the page history.html
 * the page regimen.html
 * the page devices.html (4 times)

Of course, the subject of these wikipedia pages is special, and so, websites about it (or about circumcision) are also special. But the content of this website is perfectly in relation with the two wikipedia pages.

The problem seems to be when editing a wikipedia page and putting a URL of this website, the edit is refused as a spam.

But the reputation, this website is considered as good by Web Of Thrust addon.

May be the reason why this website has been blacklited is a political one. There are people in the world who consider very important to protect the circumcision, including by using dishonest manners against Websites which have an oposite opinion about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bech (talk • contribs) 17:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Yes. Bech (talk)


 * This, simply, is an advocacy website, and, guess what, someone found it necessary to blatantly promote this in utterly inappropriate ways to even less appropriate pages ("The National Organization of Restoring Men has information about Circumcision and Foreskin Restoration. Sign the White House circumcision petition needs signers up to and on OCT 23" and "The Occupy Wikipedia Movement will not stop. The Occupy Wikipedia movement is prepared for censorship by the man. Read this message"). As said before, someone apparently found that the site was not liked enough, and found Wikipedia as the place give it some extra weight.
 * Mainpage linking on Wikipedia pages where norm.org is NOT the subject should be removed per WP:ELNO/WP:OFFICIAL - the mainpage (its index.html) is only appropriate on the official website (the other links are inappropriate - norm.org is not an 'official website' for e.g. foreskin restoration - seen that National Organization of Restoring Men does not exist, I am tempted to remove the index-whitelist).
 * history and regimen are whitelisted - if other links are needed, they can be added per request as well (I have no clue why norm.org is linked on tissue expansion .. there are more appropriate references for the sentence it is used as a reference on - norm.org is not an authority on the medical technique; and there are other questionable uses as well where I am not sure if it would pass a whitelist request for the specific link).
 * I still think that the risk of inappropriate promoting this site (which is the risk with advocacy sites, and as has been shown with this site), makes it illegible for blanket whitelisting (or de-listing). Specific pages for specific goals can be added through whitelisting.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the rule for the index-page, as the only place where that links belongs is on National Organization of Restoring Men, other links currently in place to the homepage/index page are failing WP:EL. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

hometown.aol.co.uk/glamrockbear
This was a personal website about glam rock. The webmaster was a glam rock enthusiast (and expert) who went by the name of Glam Rock Bear and worked as a DJ. The site is referenced by Sara J. on the WMBR 88.1 FM Radio - Gorilla Got Me web site, at http://www.gorillagotme.com/links.htm. Also by Wellington College's Intranet, at http://intranet.wellingtoncollege.org.uk/music-technology/lower-sixth/genres.

It contains much information about women who performed music during the Glam Rock Era. Since most of them were either not notable or only marginally notable, it is difficult to find this information elsewhere. Glam Rock Bear's glam rock website was one of many personal websites that were hosted by AOL until it decided to close them all down (see info.aol.co.uk/hometown/product-notification). Fortunately, an archive of this particular personal web site still exists on WaybackMachine.

While his site was on-line at AOL, Glam Rock Bear requested feedback about any copyright infringements: "if I happen to have used any images which you know to be copyrighted please let me know and they will be removed". He also (unusually for such web sites) gave high quality citations for the images of the magazine cuttings that he included in his reviews. I believe that his use of these cuttings counts as "fair dealing" under the laws of England. (These laws are more strict than US "fair use" laws).

There is some debate between editors about whether, or to what extent, glam rock is one of Suzi Quatro's genres. I would like to cite the following in the Suzi Quatro article:

web.archive.org/web/20080422060152/(httpCOLON// deleted)hometown.aol.co.uk/glamrockbear/page5.html Glam Girls:
 * To show that Quatro may not be the "only canonical female glam rocker" (as Philip Auslander, an American academic expert on Glam Rock, has stated).
 * To help to demonstrate how, before she became successful, Quatro's image was (briefly) similar to that of the other glam rock women, but that it changed radically just before her first success.

web.archive.org/web/20080607003237/(httpCOLON// deleted)hometown.aol.co.uk/glamrockbear/page25.html Bobbie McGee:
 * To add a quote from a Disc (magazine) interview with female glam rocker McGee, where she says that she did not see Quatro as direct competition because "I think that she is into something rather different".

Please would someone add these web pages to the whitelist. Many thanks, Peter Loader (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would consider to add:
 * hometown.aol.co.uk/glamrockbear/page5.html
 * hometown.aol.co.uk/glamrockbear/page25.html
 * Would that be enough? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. Please would you just consider these two pages. They would be enough for me. Many thanks — Peter Loader (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

ajreissig.hubpages.com/hub/More-Email-Clients-for-the-Linux-Desktop
The page contains a comparison of multiple e-mail clients for the Linux desktop. I would like to use that as a reference for Trojitá. It is a random page which I just found via Google, and it looks like the comparison is on-par with other articles comparing (other brands of) software. I'm in no way affiliated with that page or its author; I'm the maintainer of Trojita and am trying to address the alleged lack of secondary sources of the Trojitá article. Jkt (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

examiner.com/article/richard-hatch-and-russell-hantz-inducted-into-survivor-hall-of-fame

 * examiner.com/article/richard-hatch-and-russell-hantz-inducted-into-survivor-hall-of-fame
 * examiner.com/article/richard-hatch-and-russell-hantz-inducted-into-survivor-hall-of-fame

Hi! I'd like to use this page from Examiner.com for four biographical articles: Russell Hantz, Richard Hatch, Parvati Shallow, and Rob Mariano. The page concerns these people's induction into the Survivor Hall of Fame, a major accomplishment with their appearances on the show. I've tried looking for other sources, but they mostly seem to be either unreliable or not have the exact information I need. I think Wikipedia would benefit greatly from this page being whitelisted because it documents a major achievement in these people's reality tv appearances. I'd greatly appreciate it if this page could be whitelisted. I'm not in any way affiliated with the site's owner. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 05:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/article/burton-cummings-the-guess-who-legend-reveals-true-origin-of-american-woman
...for American Woman (song)

—Jerome Potts (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

peteris.skorovs.lv

 * peteris.skorovs.lv/historical-patents/minox-patents/
 * peteris.skorovs.lv/historical-patents/levi-s-patent/
 * peteris.skorovs.lv/historical-patents/levi-s-patent/

Can you please consider whitelisting of the two above links: The first link is cited in Minox (in English, French, Italian, and Latvian) and Minox 8x11 (in German); The second one is cited in Jacob Davis (Schneider) (in German), Jacob Davis (in French), and Džinsi (in Latvian)

The both links provide evidence for the historic facts mentioned in the articles. Moreover, the both links are accepted by German Reviewers in Minox 8x11 and Jacob Davis (Schneider).

Skorovs (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

suite101.com/

 * suite101.com/a/we-need-to-talk-about-dad-a-moving-channel-4-documentary-a397358
 * Used in . Retained by Debresser in these edits. Cited article (while being hosted at the blacklisted suite101.com, a request that is often denied) seems reliable in this context. What's the view in this case, please? Thanks for considering this request. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 13:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

www.youporn.com/information/#terms
Obviously YouPorn should be blacklisted, but this specific Terms of Use page is being cited in the article as a source. Because of this, the article has been tagged by Cyberbot II since September '13. The url mentioned in the article is: http: SLASH SLASH youporn DOT com SLASH terms. This url redirects to the url I put in the header. I request that url to be whitelisted, so that I can add it to the article. Cheers, theFace 21:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * . Never mind. I have removed the url from the article because it no longer seems to support the given info. Yours sincerely, Manifestation 15:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

mathsball.blogspot.com.es

 * mathsball.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/herds-of-goats-and-group-decisions.html

Wikipedia article: Abilene paradox

Only requesting whitelisting of the specific webpage above - not requesting whitelisting of the entire domain.

This webpage would only be used in the 'External links' section of the Wikipedia article, and will not be used to support any material in the body of the article. This particular webpage does not contain mathematics. The webpage provides a highly educational, informative and insightful practical example of the Abilene paradox. This practical example is also fun and entertaining to read. In my view, restoring the external link would not damage the Wikipedia article in any way, and would only help improve and strengthen the article.

Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 03:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see any reason why this particular link should be included on the page. An obscure blog mentioning the paradox does not seem to be particularly significant.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The webpage goes far beyond only mentioning the paradox. It develops in detail and in depth an excellent, highly informative example of the paradox. And the example developed in this external link is also more practical, elaborate and complex than the example [the trip to the restaurant] provided in the body of the Wikipedia article. The webpage enriches the WP article by adding an extra dimension - an application in the business world. And while many business-world examples of decision-making processes tend to be dry and boring, this particular one is entertaining and interesting to read. It also contains images/ graphics that make the example more attractive, compared to the dry, plain-looking, flat-looking trip-to-restaurant example in the main body of the article. IjonTichy (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am in general an ardent supporter of adding concrete real life examples to articles. But the blog post is relatively long-winded, and it is not graphically or literary well crafted. Besides, external links should as a rule of thumb be avoided in my opinion. Perhaps you could add the same story in your own words? Ideally Wikipedia should have a examples which are are both pedagogical and vivid. --Spannerjam 21:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally, I would not support having such a post as an external link. My belief is that the section for external links is primarily for general reference material about a subject and for temporarily adding potential citations. I do not believe the blog post would be appropriate in either context. As such, I do not see any reason to whitelist this particular link.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Devil's Advocate here. --Spannerjam 17:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * May I ask that an admin please close this whitelist request. Thanks, IjonTichy (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

/ MER-C 02:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for whitelisting
Is there a guideline for determining whether a whitelisting request is a good and legitimate request? What are the valid grounds for whitelisting? How is it determined whether the criteria, if there are criteria, have been satisfied? I don't see much in the way of guidance on this page. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm, hey. I think you're right - this has never been put into a guideline (or did I miss that as well).  The closest there is is /Common requests (which could nicely be used as a start).  Time to start Spam-whitelist?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * They do somewhat overlap with the de-blacklisting requirements I would say (though for specific links the 'risk that they get spammed/abused again' is smaller). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, see Special:PrefixIndex/MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, /review seems abandoned. The /Common requests page focuses on what is denied. We need something that focuses on what is accepted, in particular what might be speedily accepted vs. potentially controversial whitelistings requiring discussion. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I agree we need a guideline, there is not much that is speedily accepted (the obvious mis-catch is one of the few things) - for the rest, it either requires knowledge or finding and interpreting the reasons it got blacklisted. A way to get things through fast is in a way described - describe in full why and what you want whitelisted, show the old cases and describe why you think whitelisting is appropriate, that there are no alternatives (even better, show that) and hope that there are enough admins to actually whitelist the stuff.  I think it is more a 'do this and you have a good chance it goes fast', then a 'this type of material goes fast'.  Do take into account that some of us work with keeping WP:BEANS (don't show our ways of finding someone is a spammer) and WP:OUTING (if there is a named account in the past, we do not always regurgitate it, just WP:AGF that we saw it or look for it yourself) into account - some information is findable if you know how to find it, it is not always obviously or clearly linked.  That may hamper speedy-ness on this page (you need the admin to do the research).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:ELN. I started that thread some time ago in response to what I read below. Are you suggesting that even in a case like this, you would still expect an admin/checkuser to do "secret research" on the creator of this article to verify that they were not a spammer? If not, what other reasons are there to go slow? How does one "prove" that alternative sources don't exist? It's hard to prove a negative. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, some admins are at an advantage, they have the experience.
 * I'm not sure about the thread you started there. I would say, that if a link is genuinly good, you just post here, if you have your reservations, you go to the RSN or ELN, and ask something along the lines 'I have this link, do you guys think that it is fine?' - you however put it there more matter-of-factly, and while you apparently were already convinced it complied with the guidelines.
 * That a link was not put there by the spammers (sometimes difficult to prove whether an editor is a spammer, but if it is a regular it is generally not) is not necessarily a reason that it really needs to stay either. We do remove links at some point, even if they are added by a 10-year admin if they start failing the basis of WP:EL / WP:NOT - does it add to the data already there, maybe better overviews have come, etc.  Questions to keep in mind.  But lets say it is still warranted.  Then it is a matter of asking here and get it whitelisted (which you did).
 * The problem here is, and I keep repeating this, this page is understaffed by volunteers, and there are hardly any non-admin-editors who help in researching, preparing etc. either It is almost always 'word of the requester against the word of the one admin who handles it' (so much for consensus building).  Some admins try to help, in good faith, but it really needs research and understanding as a recent case of such help showed (sorry, some competence is required, though it can be learned by watching, discussing and taking an occasional revert on your admin action from someone with more experience).  That means that even speedy requests, really, really blatantly obvious cases stay sometimes for weeks, not because it takes us so long to actually search for it, just because there is no manpower (and sometimes we do ask for some more information, and get no response for weeks too).  Unlike blacklisting (not blacklisting speedily damages Wikipedia sometimes bigtime), whitelisting generally affects only one page, which often not even gets damaged because of the lack of the link, it just did not improve further (and for the links that have been tagged by Cyberbot, they were there, they have a potential of damaging the page, but they do not make the page worse).  (somehow I thought you were aware of my lack-of-admin-manpower-on-the-spam-blacklist-and-spam-whitelist-pages-and-xfd's-are-so-much-cooler-and-important-rants already - some request require research, and even if they don't, there is a lack of manpower problem).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Regarding other sources - for examiner.com you will be surprised how often a simple Google search gives you a handful of good other sources stating the same. You may also see from the history of this page, that some requesters did that extra mile for an examiner.com article, and they show it is quite unique.  Indeed, it often does not mean that the info is really not available elsewhere, but often, it is worth a try to look for it.  And if I remember the business-review-case (really, I may be wrong) - were some, if not all, of those sites not agglomerate sites (practically regurgitating info published by the company: "CompanyX: We made a new smartphone" -> review-site: "CompanyX announced that they made a new smartphone" .. hmmm .. how is that reliable and unique information - a genuine editor may have found such a document and used it to create the article, one could question whether it is really appropriate, and one can question whether it is unique/replaceable).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * See MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist for a case where the editor did go the extra mile (yes, there are other sources, but they got it from examiner.com), MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/09 shows a couple of denied examiner.com links: one suspected case of COI (!), and a couple where Google search resulted in alternate sources (from really reliable sites) that do show the same info as the examiner.com publication. Not saying that your request needs that same scrutiny, but it shows a bit what is done/needed.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Another recent example of research - quite speedy-type of requests: requests for delisting for some official homepages for their subject pages on Wikipedia - obvious that they need their links, isn't it? You see the first, think .. hmm, looks reasonable (regular requesting it), you do some research, massive spam campaign x years ago, but the particular subject is notable alright .. other request, that looks reasonable as well (same, official site of subject, different requester, but also a regular).  You do the research .. turns out a massive spam campaign x years ago ... wait .. the same massive spam campaign x years ago.  You start digging, why do we have those pages, who edit it.  Yep.  The spammers of x years ago are still here editing ('cleaning') those pages (sometimes even creating those pages) but carefully not adding their external links, or primary references (well, they could not!).  And they applied the standard SEO tricks, right out of the book.  What would YOU do?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A while ago, I thought about moving all this stuff to Blocked external links complete with proper explanations. Never got around to finishing it. Stifle (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)