MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2014/05

andrewprokos.com
Explain why the site should be whitelisted - I have written a biographical article on the photographer Andrew Prokos and want to include a simple link to his website home page. The URL was apparently blacklisted years ago in March 2008...the editor believed that the site was too commercial in nature because it mentions how to purchase prints of the photographer's works. I tried a removal request on the blacklist page and it was deferred to the whitelist page

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link - The article Andrew Prokos, which is a bio of the living photographer and mentions his exhibitions, awards, and publications.

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added - andrewprokos.com/bio.html.
 * ✅ OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding this to the whitelist Jamie! Larantes (talk) 16:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience. There's a relatively small pool of admins who answer requests on both lists, so it can be daunting to keep up with the backlog. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Pornhub.com

 * Specifically, I am attempting to create an external links section on the Wikipedia article named Pornhub with just the official link to their website, only to find out that it's blacklisted. My basis in policy is WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:ELOFFICIAL. It would be their official website. Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there an index.php, about.php or similar page that we can link to? We'll whitelist that, but we will not whitelist the entire domain. MER-C 03:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCENSORED is not a reason for de-listing, these sites are not listed because Wikipedia has been censored - these sites are listed because they were, and still are (5 attempted additions by 3 editors over the last 3 days, which all look like school-vandalism) abused. I agree, we need a specific page per /Common requests.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not requesting that Pornhub.com be unblocked in all of its entirety, just an exception for the page for Pornhub due to an official link to their website on their own article I think is warranted. If this is not where I request that, would you please link me to where I would request it? I also acknowledge that it wasn't added due to Wikipedia being censored, but due to vandalism by school IPs. Just want one exception for this one page. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You are exactly in the right place, User:Tutelary, but we can not whitelist the homepage directly as that would enable everything to be linked again (and at least actually allow for the vandalism again). We therefore ask for something like an index.htm ( http://www.pornhub.com/index.htm ?) or, and that is often better, the full url of the about-page (which is strictly spoken not the homepage, but as close to it as sometimes is possible).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend www.pornhub.com/information#faq (the #faq is mandatory, otherwise you get a completely different page) or www.pornhub.com/sitemap. The information page is as close to an 'about us' page as I can find, so that would probably be most appropriate for whitelisting. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , I would be perfectly fine with the information#faq section being whitelisted specifically for the article. However, does the whitelist really work by an all or nothing approach? You have to whitelist the entire website all across the site or block it entirely? There's no exception for a specific page, it affects all pages? Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , there are two lists: blacklist and whitelist. The blacklist will block an entire site. The whitelist is intended to allow for exceptions to the blacklist, by whitelisting specific pages. To do this, we need a URL path to a specific page, not just the name of the site. Whitelisting the name of the site is identical to removing the site from the blacklist. That isn't what we want to do.


 * With many websites, the 'root' page you get when you point your browser at example.com is the same as example.com/index.html or example.com/index.php. Therefore, whitelisting those root pages are no problem because we have more than just the name of the site, we have an actual path to the home page. Many other sites, particularly those run by a content management system, have internal links that are completely unrelated to the underlying file structure on the site (the 'pages' may all be database records), so there is no actual path to a home page that we can whitelist. In that case there is usually a path to an 'about us' page that we can whitelist. This path may also be unrelated to the underlying file structure of the site, but at least it's a path that is more than simply a domain name.


 * In any case, I'll add the faq page to the whitelist.
 * Consider this ✅. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

dzone.com versus bdzone.com
I can guess why bdzone.com has been blacklisted, but dzone.com is a website about software development. Currently the blacklist doesn't properly distinguish them. Loren Rosen (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am also curious why dzone is blocked. I have found it to be a credible source and a good reference for software development and, I would like to use several of their articles as citations. Patrick W Roach (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No, this has nothing to do with bdzone.com. dzone.com was (ab)used in 2009 to circumvent an earlier blacklisting from 2007:
 * In other word, spammed to promote a site.
 * For the discussion, see here on Meta, which states for dzone (at that time):
 * About DZone
 * DZone is a free link-sharing community for developers
 * anyone can submit new links to the incoming queue
 * members vote on upcoming links to determine what gets promoted
 * everyone can browse, search and comment on links
 * Now, that may have sufficiently changed in the last 5 years, and if that is so, I would consider to file a request for delisting (i.e. ) explaining that clearly.
 * If the situation did not change drastically, and the site is still basically the same, then individual documents might be fine, where I would suggest to whitelist specific documents. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I found little professional discussion on SAFe and in an attempt to supplement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_agile_framework, which contains information from the authors of the framework I saught to include some feedback found here: agile.dzone.com/articles/method-wars-scrum-vs-safe. Can that article be whitelisted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weberr13 (talk • contribs)
 * I found little professional discussion on SAFe and in an attempt to supplement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_agile_framework, which contains information from the authors of the framework I saught to include some feedback found here: agile.dzone.com/articles/method-wars-scrum-vs-safe. Can that article be whitelisted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weberr13 (talk • contribs)

User Analysis Tool
You really should be more careful before making changes to your tool. I and the others below are all affected by this "blacklisting". Frecklefoot, Philg88, Diannaa and others affected: Please see User talk:cyberpower678, and take your issues there, rather than further "spamming" this whitelist page. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Frecklefoot
I've been blacklisted from the User Analysis Tool (my link) for "excessive use". I may use it a few times a day. Sorry, if that's "excessive", but I'd like access to it again. I promise to reign in my use of it. What's the limit for using it? Thanks. &mdash; Fr&epsilon;ckl&epsilon;fσσt | Talk 18:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Philg88
I see that I too have been blacklisted when I tried to run the tool to evaluate a potential RfA candidate. I use the edit counter a lot and I had no idea there was a usage limit. Is there a finite number of queries allowed per day, or some other restriction? Please advise, many thanks. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 19:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Diannaa
I've been blacklisted from the User Analysis Tool (link) for "excessive use". I may have used the tool 5-10 times in the past month, and don't see how this can be construed as excessive! I use this tool in administrative work. Thanks for considering my request. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Spam blacklisting/whitelisting is unrelated to this external tool. This talk page is only for requests related to the spam blacklist/whitelist. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 02:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

google.com --> a Washington state pdf re: 2014 Oso mudslide
google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDAQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.leg.wa.gov%2FHistory%2FLegislative%2FDocuments%2FMembersOfLeg2011.pdf&ei=MVk9U9GdAY3gsASTmIHoDA&usg=AFQjCNHBbtuFmUiBmLjK9UIuRmjj6l2_Sw&bvm=bv.63934634,d.cWc|google.com ...

I have removed "google.com" (having earlier removed the "http" bit) from the front of my url because it wouldn't save; in case it saves now (how can one ask for a specific Google link to be whitelisted? or is it completely banned? in which case not say that up top?) ... I resume my specific request:
 * I found no way to "jar loose" a regular web address from this Google address: It took me straight to the pdf from the search result. There is a "leg.wa.gov" source cited by Google (full source: "leg.wa.gov/Legislative/Documents/" which goes to '404 - Page not found' at "wa") on the way to the pdf; repeated searches at leg.wa.gov did not turn up the requested document, State of Washington Members of the Legislature 1889-2011. In short, I can find no other way to access this pdf and cite it other than to use the google.com url.
 * As to the importance of the info: It shows the full legislative service history (district, party, dates) for John Pennington, the FEMA county head at the mudslide. Pennington was quoted memorably a few days ago saying the event was "completely unforeseen" the same day the Seattle Times published an article that "Site has long history of slide problems". Today Mr. Pennington was on NPR Morning Ed. talking about "this is the fastest disaster declaration he's seen in his history of 20 such"+-, ie not a minor character. I'd previously just linked to Ed Orcutt for his legislative history; Orcutt it's said in that Wiki article succeeded him in the House. But the cite for that at Orcutt was a dead link to a blog. So I'm stuck. Party and dates show Pennington was appointed by the GWBush Admin. Bush's first FEMA director was former campaign aide Joe Allbaugh, when Pennington would have been appointed; Allbaugh was succeeded by Katrina-quote-notorious Michael D. Brown. For lots of context. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made the edit I wanted here now with this as the footnote:
 * "State of Washington Members of the Legislature 1889-2011; document accessed as a pdf via a Google search on the title. Retrieved 2014-04-03."
 * and this as the Edit summary:
 * "Pennington legislative hist. restored and upgraded with better cite; hed; seeking Wiki approval to link to Google address here"; with "here" linking to this whitelist request and "better cite" referring to my earlier link to the Orcutt article.
 * I'd still of course rather have a live link to the Google page. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume you read /Common requests. However, you really want a link to http://www.leg.wa.gov/History/Legislative/Documents/MembersOfLeg2011.pdf I presume.  No need to increase the page-ranking of the site by using the Google redirect.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Belatedly, and somehow, I had not read that "Common request" despite clear instruction to do so. Sorry. Also, somehow, you've found the direct link I tried (hard, I thought) and failed to find. Thanks. Meanwhile my edit's been eliminated in the article and I'm having a hard time gearing up for another fight there. Back here, my request is moot. The proscription at Common seems excessive but I'll have to address it the next time. Thanks again, meantime. Swliv (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)