MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2015/02

The below requested were archived in February 2015.

www.beacon.org
This is a book publisher homepage (a known publisher, imprint of Random House), useful for publication information. Mozucat (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added an exception; this is the page being used as a citation by the class project improving Kindred (novel). I think it might take a bit for the exception to take effect.--Pharos (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/Terms_of_Use.html
For use in the Examiner.com article in order to include a reference citing the examiner.com's Terms of Use. Mojoworker (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * How many weeks does it take for these whitelisting requests to be resolved? Do we need more admins? Mojoworker (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, it's been over a month now. I've lost the edit I was trying to make. FFS, the bureaucracy here is mind–numbing at times. Time to resurrect WP:WikiProject Administrator? Mojoworker (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Examiner.com
I'm proposing the whitelisting solely for use in the article about Examiner.com to link to the site. I strongly support maintaining the site on the blacklist for most purposes, but it should be linked in the article about the topic. Whitelisting this wouldn't benefit a specific person. We normally link to a company website in articles about them and this shouldn't be different. Request specific link examiner.com to be whitelisted for the article Examiner.com Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * We can't white-list the domain name. We need an actual path to an actual page on that site. Besides, the link to www.examiner.com is already available in the infobox of the Examiner.com article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is in the infobox and an annoying bot keeps tagging the article for using it. How about examiner.com/about Niteshift36 (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One answer is all we get? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 6 weeks? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * www.examiner.com/about doesn't exist. Do you mean www.examiner.com/About_Examiner ? If so, I'd support whitelisting that. -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It has apparently changed since I proposed it. Yes, that link would work just fine. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * www.examiner.com/About_Examiner ✅ -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

www.galerie-obadia.com/artists/file_120_2.pdf A Conversation with Quentin Bajac


I'd like to whitelist this web page to add it to the Luc Delahaye page because this is his most comprehensive interview. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.96.2 (talk • contribs)
 * Yes. The link is as you describe; I'm about to whitelist it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RjC-vh06_c
This page would be extremely helpful on the article Trent from Punchy, as this YouTube video is the subject of said article, however it is currently blacklisted as an external link, presumably because the Trent from Punchy article was until recently blocked from being re-created. Freikorp (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Been waiting over 6 weeks now; any chance someone can take a brief look at this? Freikorp (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of whitelisting this exception to a more general blacklist entry; instead, it's a matter of removing something from the blacklist. &para; So much for hairsplitting; what you say seems valid and I am about to remove the entry. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/review/clinton-heylin-pores-through-springsteen-discog-e-street-shuffle
I would like to whitelist this review of Clinton Heylin's book on Bruce Springsteen, to add as a cite to the Heylin article. I believe Peter Roche is a widely published journalist and reviewer, so his review of Heylin's book is not spam. Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason we can't find reviews from reliable sources that aren't blacklisted? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Not all reviews are of equal merit. Roche's review is knowledgeable and has informed discussions about Springsteen's recording history. Why is it not valid as comment on Heylin's book? Mick gold (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The key is in the 'reviews from reliable sources' - examiner.com reviews do not have editorial overview, and hence not necessarily reliable. If there are sources from reliable sources, those other ones are preferable.  And this type of information simply looks like information that is available from other, reliable sources.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Says who? Int21h (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * What part? Examiner itself clearly tells that they do not review what is published there, and Google shows many reviews of the book besides examiner.com.  People just publish their reviews on examiner.com for one reason - to earn money with it.  If that same information is available elsewhere (on sites that do not have this problem of earning money for the writer, or are of equal or even better general reliability), then those other sources are preferable.  Is the specific information from the review on examiner.com so unique that it can not be sourced elsewhere?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

examiner.com/article/shatner-is-a-ladykiller-director-william-gref-on-impulse-1974
I just want to use it for Impulse (1974 film). --George Ho (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No reason given to suggest that this is more credible than the average stuff from examiner.com. -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/article/singer-barbara-mauritz-of-lamb-group-that-helped-close-fillmore-west-has-died?cid=rss


Need a 1 page unlist for this: www.examiner.com/article/singer-barbara-mauritz-of-lamb-group-that-helped-close-fillmore-west-has-died?cid=rss

I had to put an extra. in that to get it to save...should be examiner all 1 word.

We need that link because it is the only confirmation of the death of Barbara Mauritz so far. It is for the Deaths in 2014 page.

Thanks.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Examiner.com is blacklisted for good reason; there's no suggestion in the request that the reason doesn't apply here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/review/the-big-bang-theory-the-hawking-excitation-review

 * www.examiner.com/review/the-big-bang-theory-the-hawking-excitation-review is a link I wish to include in "The Hawking Excitation". It has a review of the episode, and I think it is well-written and reliable (as good as the reviews I have include from IGN, The A.V. Club etc). Reviews are just opinions, and given all the other reviews mentioned I can't see it giving undue weight. I have drafted a paragraph containing what I would like to say here, containing another review as well. (The refs don't work because it's in my sandbox but you can get the gist.) Bilorv (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a question, do you think that the examiner.com review says the same because of independent and reliable research, or because the other reviews that you mention say the same (and hence, the examiner.com review is a regurgitation of that)? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I understand the question but I'll have a go at answering it. The examiner review contains positive feedback, similar to most of the other reviews, and also compliments Stephen Hawking's appearance in the episode. No other review mentions the limited screen time of Hawking (which I think is an important point) or the fact that he is a scientist (contrasting with many other guest stars on the show), so I think it would be unfair to call it a "regurgitation" of any other review. Bilorv (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The author of that review is a college student, not a professional reviewer, according to his bio. I am not understanding why it is necessary for a review to point out that Stephen Hawking had screen time (of course he did, every other review mentions that he appeared on the show, so obviously he had screen time) or that he is a scientist (obviously he's a scientist, he is one of the best-known modern scientists of our age, instantly recognizable, and an author of popular books for laypeople). Are you saying that you want to cite this Examiner review for stating what is already obvious? I can tell from the other reviews, without even seeing the show, that Stephen Hawking had screen time in it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The key word was limited: Hawking had limited screen time. Yes, of course he appeared in the episode but only in the final scene, very briefly (as opposed to say, James Earl Jones, who had much more screen time in "The Convention Conundrum"). Without a review stressing that Hawking only appeared for a short period of time, the article might imply that Hawking had a much bigger acting part in the episode. As for the scientist bit, well, the point is that the show was complimented for having a scientist on the show, as the show is about science. No other review explicitly mentions that it is great that they managed to get a high-profile scientist on the show. Bilorv (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The real point here, is that anybody can write a review on examiner.com, and it isn't any different from writing the same review on a personal blog. In this case we have a college kid using examiner.com as a means to generate a bit of extra income. If he compliments a show or makes any other personal observation, then it is no different than citing some random blogger who happens to review TV shows, of which there are many. And, blogs are generally not acceptable as references. Due to examiner.com's lack of editorial oversight, it is functionally no different than a blog, and therefore generally not acceptable for citing in accordance with WP:RS.


 * Also we don't need sources for self-evident facts that are obvious by inspection. For example, we could say without citation that the Mona Lisa has her arms crossed, because that fact is obvious from looking at the painting. Similarly, the article can say without citation that Hawking appeared only in the final scene, because it is obvious from looking at the episode. This solves the problem of the possible implication that Hawking had a bigger role.


 * I am not seeing a reason to white-list yet another examiner.com link for the purpose of citing facts that are obvious, or for citing the views and observations of a non-notable reviewer. On that basis, this request is . ~Amatulić (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

thewebminer.com
Link to add: Ady1689 (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The website should be whitelisted because contains free data analysis tools in "tools" section that are relevant for articles like Data analysis, Data clustering, Data scraping and other articles related to statistics. Also it's a relevant source of data for statistics. There are some free data sets in "Download" section.
 * We're not going to whitelist the whole site; that is the same as removing it from the blacklist, (which as you know as the petitioner, was already declined). Notice that most (if not all) approve requests here state which specific link is to be whitelisted and for what purpose. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

You can whitelist url thewebminer.com/tools ? --78.97.94.140 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but you can stop wasting your time on these noticeboards. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If the /tools path is common to all the links that got the site blacklisted in the first place, then I agree, the answer is no.
 * You need to propose a specific link for use in a specific article, and explain why having that link adds value to the article. So far, you have not done this. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

dubaimetro.eu
The website should be whitelisted because it is the official website of Dubai Metro, and I will be using it to cite some references in Dubai Metro articles. Epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We don't white-list entire websites here. If you want to de-list the site from the blacklist, the place to request it is at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Also using a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE as a reference is not desirable in articles. If you have a specific page on that site to propose as a reference, we can consider it, but not the whole site. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

losthorizons.com
The website is full of useful information about the U.S. Income Tax. The URL I specify below contains the cover page and page 98 of the court transcript referred to in the last paragraph of the article on Victoria_A._Roberts. The full document is not yet available on the Internet.

Articles that would benefit from the removal of losthorizons.com from the blacklist include every article on the application of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, including Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Internal Revenue Code.

Articles that would benefit from the addition of the link below include Victoria A. Roberts, Subornation of perjury, Title 18 of the United States Code, and Nancy Garlock Edmunds. There are likely many others where the contention between judge's orders and standing law is discussed.

The specific link to the page I'm requesting be added is losthorizons.com/Newsletter/CriminalAssault/DoreenJuryInstructions.pdf

Dscotese (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Lost Horizons seems like a highly unreliable source pushing a incoherent conspiracy theory about the US tax code. It seems best that it stay blacklisted.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

www.examiner.com page

 * www.examiner.com/article/ny-choral-society-honors-john-mcclure-jennifer-higdon-at-spring-gala7411
 * www.examiner.com/article/ny-choral-society-honors-john-mcclure-jennifer-higdon-at-spring-gala7411


 * Non-controversial biographical information, cited in John McClure (producer). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * You mean the same data as that can be found from other sites, like http://guestofaguest.com/new-york/calendar/2014/march/new-york-choral-society-spring-gala-2, which seems more reputable than examiner.com and, I think, without the problems of examiner.com. Looking at the quick google results, there are other sites which are suitable as a reference as well.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The guestofaguest page you suggested is an inadequate substitute; it uses future tense, and thus does not prove the assertion. In what way is the examiner.com link problematic? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please reply. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Examiner.com articles are written to make money for generally unspecialised amateur writers, and generally not to be an independent reliable source. The material is often scraped, original research, or unverifiable.  We ask editors who request whitelisting of examiner.com links whether there are replacements (and I seem to find that this information is, at least in part, available elsewhere).  When working on BLPs, we ask for proper references, and examiner.com articles do not have the best reputation there (but there are exceptions - but my first search did not suggest this is one of them).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If the writers are making money, they're not amateurs. McClure is dead. Where else (noting my concern above) did you find this information confirmed? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "If the writers are making money, they're not amateurs" - And that is where the misunderstanding of Examiner.com is: You sign up, you write your article, and for every person who visits your article you get money. And not, as you may think, that the writers are hired to write, like e.g. for the New York Times.
 * You want confirmation that John McClure is dead? See www.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/arts/music/john-mcclure-dies-at-84-produced-classic-records.html?_r=0.  That is on a site where writers get hired to write, a site with a history of fact checking, a reliable source.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Or for the point that some society awarded him an award where no outside source has published about (including the local New York Times), except for one article on examiner.com and some announcements? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm referring to the award. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, and how is it notable in Wikipedia that a (redlinked, hence questionable notable) society (in fact, an article on the subject was A7'd) awarded him a (redlinked, hence questionably notable) award which has only been reported by one article on Examiner.com, and not by any mainstream publication? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Remulve my site foxylex.dk to spam list


Please remulve my site foxylex.dk to spam list this site is Law Danish site - this is not spam received was confusion Thanks for understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.156.232 (talk • contribs).


 * This page is for whitelist requests, not for removal requests.  for removal requests (this is globally blacklisted, not locally), or please give a full url for a specific link for a specific place on Wikipedia here.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

silkroad6ownowfk.onion
1. Why the site should be whitelisted: There is in place a generalised and universal ban on the .onion domain space which (in summary) is a response to, and defence for the perceived (or real) threat of anonymous tor domains being a source of redirects, malware and generally sub-optimal material.

2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link: This whitelisting is to remedy and rectify a gaping hole (specifically the link to the marketplace in question) on the article page about Silk Road Marketplace. 

3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. (provided above)

Comments: After looking into the history of this blacklisting I was able to find no stated reason based on the intent to block the existence of the fact of Silk Road marketplace, only that it was asserted that a global .onion blacklisting was desired and exists as *anything*.onion in the global blacklist so as to enable case-by-case whitelisting (such as this) to occur.

However it is clear that this is resulting in a kind of false reality because lacking a reference to the marketplace under discussion is suppressing a fundamental and factual and absolute attribute with respect the article topic.

Depriving a reader of the relevant link is akin to having an entire article about the Google search engine and failing to and intentionally omitting any references to google.com.

The net effect is at best pseudo-censorship and a speech violation. At worst this fundamentally undermines the wikipedia project only serves to harm the very objectives of the freedom of access to information. It is incumbent on editors not to allow such a greasy pole of thought policing to take root in this project, as it is harmful writ large. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.39.42 (talk • contribs)


 * . What "speech violation"? Wikipedia is not subject to any laws or regulation mandating free speech.
 * Also, the .onion TLD is not recognized by any browser or internet DNS. Links that require special software to view are generally to be avoided. You can always include the link by omitting the 'http' or 'onion' prefix. If most readers don't have the required software anyway, it won't make any difference. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion


.onion domains has a Blanket ban on them, which mean that any Tor hidden service that constitute a official link need to first go through here. This specific domain is the official link for The Pirate Bay, and while their other domain name change frequently, this one do not. It is also unaffected by roadblocks in which readers who want to understand the subject matter might encounter. It is currently preventing consensus to add it as per article talk page.

The domain itself has never been added to wikipedia before, and as such has no history of spam or issues.

See and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2011 for details about why all .onion domains got Blanket blacklisted. Belorn (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . Because the link requires special software to function, it won't make any difference to the vast majority of readers whether the link is 'active' or not. Therefore, it also won't make any difference to the vast majority of readers simply to display the link as uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion without any special prefix. If anyone with the required Tor sofware wants to view it, they can always copy and paste it. But it's useless as a reference for verification purposes, therefore it need not be an active link. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So a blanket blacklist entry which was added under a pretense that exceptions would be whitelisted, except now whitelisting will not happen regardless of consensus on the article talk page. When you yourself added the blanket .onion entry to the blacklist, you stated "Like .co.cc, there is no good reason to keep .onion off the blacklist when the whitelist can take care of the 2 or 3 legitimate URLs with that subdomain."(source). Now you are claiming that no whitelisting can ever be done on .onion links because they require special software to function (which is also true for flash and quicktime). Im sorry to say, but this seems very dishonestly acted on your part, saying one thing and then do an other. I still hope you are open for discussion and whitelisting .onion links as per your earlier statement, but I fear the only option available is a third opinion or Dispute resolution and redo the discussion for the original blacklist entry. Article consensus should not be disregarded because one editor has the power to edit a blacklist. Belorn (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with going against consensus or any of your other groundless accusations. I can see now it wasn't clear in my initial response (and I apologize for that) but my decline of your request was based on your dubious claim that this .onion link is the official link for The Pirate Bay. Last I checked it was thepiratebay.se. Our own article on The Pirate Bay even says so, and that article makes zero mention whatsoever of Tor or onion. No reliable source I can find confirms your claim. If you can provide a way to verify what you say, I can white-list this, but I need a valid reason &mdash; and convenience is not a valid reason to poke a hole in the blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for backing away from your previous statement and actually talk about this specific link rather than generalization of .onion links. It does make this more civil, and I do appreciate that. As for consensus, I did link to the talk page discussion that addressed which source confirms the onion link as official, and pointed that those who discussed this on the article talk page had come to an consensus. The discussion ended on "When I tried to add uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion to the article, it triggered a warning that it was on the spam blacklist, as I thought it might (screenshot here). So that's the end of that.". (source). Ending a talk page discussion on "we all agree that we want to do X, but there is a blacklist so we can't" is exactly why I posted this request (and why whitelisting exist?). If you disagree with the consensus in that talk page regarding the validity of that source, I would like to invite you to the pirate bay talk page to further discuss this there in order to reconfirm the consensus or change it. Belorn (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am considering this, but I have some reservations still: 1) that local consensus is not very broadly discussed, 3 people? And 2) per WP:ELOFFICIAL, we do not need to link to all official sites of a subject. Now, if a second official site is providing extensive extra information over the first, then that is a good consideration, however, here this is an .onion, in the dark web, inaccessible for the far majority of people (in my case, I would even doubt that I can get there with the software installed). I do agree that this is an official site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is why I invite further discussion on the talk page. Larger consensus is always nicer, but when there is no objecting voice in the discussion and it ended on a technical impossibility. My posting there was just for the record, which goes against WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY but felt necessary. Few members of the public are in the habit of casually dropping in to the local planning office in order to say "me too", and I suspect same is true for talk pages. If you feel it would be a sign of good faith, I can put up a request for comment for a few weeks/month and see if it solicit more editors to comment. Regarding 2#, I posted why in my original request. The official link frequently changes url and gets blocked. The .onion link on the other hand has been stable and consistent through all the url changes of the official link. Having a consistent link, even with the heavy drawbacks of needing special software, would be useful addition as a supplement to the other link. Belorn (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In theory, I could add a RFC for this page but since article disputes should general be on the talk page of the article, it feels a bit odd to add the template here. If we have to have it here however, could you (Dirk Beetstra) explicit state your standpoint in a yes, no, or neutral. After that, I can write a RFC with a brief, neutral statement of the issue and then summerize my statement below it. Belorn (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There is at the moment the official link - having a second link in view of that that link changes/gets blocked seems superfluous, per WP:EL/WP:ELOFFICIAL (it is not mandatory to have a working official link anyway, it is a service to the users and if it does not exist, moved (just change it to the new url), or is not accessible because the server is down is not a problem of Wikipedia). Moreover, as I stated above, the .onion is unavailable for most and hence does not add any extra information (as Amatulić is stating above 'Because the link requires special software to function, it won't make any difference to the vast majority of readers whether the link is 'active' or not').  I think that that makes the situation different from, e.g. The Hidden Wiki where the .onion is the only official link.  So I really wonder whether this is providing extra information over the official link that there is already, per 'Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy' (from WP:EL) - for me, and for the vast majority of readers, the .onion site is not providing extra information.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarify you statement a bit. There is 3 provided benefits this link provides: 1#, the site reported as the most censored website on the net, which mean a significant number of readers can not access the site using the existing link.sourcesource2source3source4 It is even questionable if the "vast majority of reader" can access the site using that link, given how common censorship of that link is. 2#, the site regularly get mirrors edited in which is not-official. Adding this official secondary link would address this need, thus reducing the edits which try to include the unofficial mirrors. 3#, the official link has consistently been in danger of WP:DATED, while the tor link is consistent over time and has not changed. It thus give a distinct long-term benefit to the article.
 * Last as a meta comment about the discussion here, I am a bit unhappy that the black list, a tool used to address spam issues on WP, is instead used as an avenue for non-spam content disputes without involving the talk page of the article. The link in question has never been related to spam problems on WP, so the WP:BLACK do not address this kind of situation, nor indicate that the black list should be used as an override to consensus of the article talk page, nor imply that it should be used as a alternative to WP:ELN. Having the discussion here and not on the article talk page seem as a consensus-building pitfalls similar to Off-wiki discussions, since participants of the talk page is not included here. Belorn (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Providing convenience links is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Anyone with software to access uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion would be quite capable of copy/pasting the text. What encyclopedic purpose would be served by making this link clickable? Bear in mind that a clickable link would not work for the vast majority of readers, so such a link would cause confusion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * We could always do an exception, but links should be real links so automated tools know what and what isn't links. There is also procedure that handle the confusion you are talking about, described at WP:EL, which states we should include "explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content". If the link is worth including its worth having it actually be a link so it can be treated as such. Belorn (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , I'll first reply to your second part - the abuse observed with different .onion domains was well within the 'spam' requirements needed to solve, as well as other problems with the .onion domains (phishing attacks, malware attacks, etc.). It is a pertinently false statement that it is used as an avenue to block content disputes, .onion sites fail our inclusion standards, whatever the local consensus or disputes resolve to.  You can have local consensus to link to a copyright violation, it does not trump our WP:COPYLINK-policy.  It is a similar concept as the recently discussed 'petition'-sites (on AN/I), where the proposal to allow the petitions to be linked was overwhelmingly shot down, even if the majority of the petitions have never been spammed.  Same would type of reasoning would be true for examiner.com (which, like the petition sites, has been spammed on a small scale, but it is providing a spam-incentive, is unreliable, often replaceable).
 * Regarding the .onion here, that the main domain regularly changes and that it is a drag to follow up is not a reason to whitelist the other link (keep it up-to-date, there are other pages which also change on an hourly basis and no-one suggests to protect them because it changes too much). It is not an inclusion argument.  That it is becoming WP:DATED is a reason to monitor, not a reason to include another stable link.  That most people can not access the official site is also not an inclusion reason, it is actually more a reason to here IAR and also not list the official site as it is of no use to the vast majority anyway).  We have NO obligation to link to the official site of a subject (it is a service .. and more of a in policy/guideline codified IAR to the same polic/guideline - if you ignore that a site is the official site for a subject, the vast majority fails the majority of WP:EL (they are overly advertising, not giving more info than Wikipedia already provides, often need special software, are not everywhere accessible, heavily abused, plainly heavily spammed, etc. etc.).  And there are cases where we do not even link to the official site of the subject because of the major abuse/spam reasons, the site is blacklisted and nothing suitable can be whitelisted without getting back the abuse.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Its hard to get back to the abuse when the this specific link has not been involved in abuse. It has not been part of an phishing attack, malware attack, been spammed or had any other abuse. The black list entry is about a type of website, rather than a specific website, which is different to the listed examples you gave. A similar block would be to do "*.qt" which blocks any link that require a quicktime reader, and using the blacklist in order to enforce against the inclusion of such content. Second, just because there is "NO obligation" to add official links is not an argument against adding it. There is no obligation to do anything on wikipedia, as any work is done on a voluntary basis using consensus. That most people can not access the official site and would be helped with this link is to me a reason for inclusion. Helping readers to further understanding of the subject is why we include a link in the first place and why we have official links included in articles. If you are disagreeing that this link is not helpful to those uses who can't access the current official link, then at least we now a clear disagreement about something specific about this link, which mean its possible to go forward with this discussion using the tools of DR. Belorn (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No, this is not the same as blocking .qt (unless .qt files would be used on a significant scale to install malware, redirect to other sites, phishing attacks, etc.). This is indeed slightly higher than examiner.com, but similar to blocks of certain 'practically redirect only TLDs'.
 * But here, the official site is there. Per WP:ELOFFICIAL we do not list all the official sites of a subject, generally only the main one.  And that is what is done.  'That most people can not access the official site and would be helped with this link is for me a reason for inclusion' .. but most people would also not be helped with this, because most people do not have the software installed to go to a .onion site.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ELOFFICIAL, more than one link may be appropriate if additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. The link provide a very unique content for those readers which can not otherwise access the website. The link is also not prominently linked from other official websites.
 * Per WP:ELOFFICIAL, where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content must be given. We can do that with this tor link. This resolve the confusion a reader might otherwhise get by a link which require a specific technology to access a link.
 * Last, readers are helped when they are given a choice. Having a link which they can view in order to research the subject matter is something I define as helpful. The software is one-click install, and is far easier to do for a reader than buying a book or getting past a pay-wall. Lets not try to make this sound as something which the majority of readers can not do if give the chose. Belorn (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That is the point "more than one link may be appropriate if additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites" (my bolding): the .onion is for most readers also not accessible and hence does not provide significant unique content. I, for one, can not see the extra content.  And I do not believe that for most readers this is providing significant unique content for most of the readers as most of the readers can not access it anyway.  Even the official site, as you state, is (regularly) not providing significant unique content, as it is blocked etc.
 * Your second point is a technicality, I do agree that these links must state that they need the extra software, if they are included.
 * Regarding the last point: Readers are helped when they have the choice, but they have no choice but to install the .onion software and go to the site (so they have no choice, either they go to the regular site, or they don't get the additional content - or they can't see either and don't get the content). Moreover, that would also be an argument in favour of adding the official website, their facebook, their myspace, their youtube channel (and all the youtube videos, so they don't have to browse through the channel to get them), their twitter, ánd their linkedin - that is providing a choice.  However, our policies and guidelines argue against that - we list only the main official website and consider additional ones only in exceptional cases.  I do not believe that this is such an exceptional case, because it is inaccessible to most readers it is not offering significant unique content beyond the official site that is there.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Simply because adding a official link is helpful to readers, it doesn't mean adding every link that exist in the world would be useful. Appeal to ridicule makes for poor discussion on talk page and I would ask you to try such things in the future, as it work counter to civil discussion and consensus-building.
 * I believe that this is such an exceptional case because A), there is a significant and unusual large number of users effected with no other options for official link. B), there article history has shown a consistent number of good-faith edits which tries to improve the article by including alternative link to the blocked official link. There is clear evidence that many readers would find an alternative link an improvement to the article, and the article talk page consensus demonstrate this. C), it is more accessible than a pay-wall, region restricted, or a physical book. The steps to access the content is simple, free, and repeatable. Calling it unaccessible because its rich media and requires a technology that is a free single click install, seem not only unfair but wrong. Most readers can access it if they want to. Belorn (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I believe it does not. It is unrealistic to ask editors who want to know more to install a piece of software just for that one case, which means that standard the information is not accessible to most of our readers.  Most readers do not have the software installed.  There is a plethora of information about the site out there- on the Wikipedia page itself, and on pages outside of the domains controlled by the Pirate Bay (the latter making better external links than this inaccessible site).  The talkpage consensus is very, very thin, the repeated attempts to include do not provide a justification, and in my opinion not overruling the consensus of WP:EL/WP:NOT.  Take it up to an AN/I or an RfC, if you want, because I don't think you will find consensus for inclusion here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

altafsir.com


This website contains mainly Islamic primary sources known as Tafsir, so just like there is a Template:Hadith-usc linking to islamic primary sources at University of South Carolina's website, this website is same as the USC webcites which has records of islamic primary sources called hadith. altafsir.com has records of islamic primary sources call tafsir. I am proposing this be whitelisted for same reason as why links from Template:Hadith-usc that go to University of South Carolina's database of islamic primary sources is whitelisted--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * because you aren't proposing whitelisting, you're actually proposing removal of the entire site from the blacklist. This page is for requesting whitelisting of specific pages with a complete URL path, not for requesting that an entire blacklisted domain be let in.
 * To request removal from the blacklist, you will need to post a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, after searching the archive of that page to learn why it was blacklisted in the first place. Given the abusive history of this domain though (it's also globally blacklisted, so de-listing here on en-wiki would have no effect), it's unlikely that the request to de-list would be granted.
 * We can whitelist specific pages on that site that are unique and not replaceable by any alternative, which is unlikely if other Tafsir sources exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Examiner.com - 3 specific articles

 * Proof that our country is founded on Natural Law & Consent of the Governed www.examiner.com/article/proof-our-country-and-the-us-constitution-is-founded-upon-natural-law
 * Natural Law:How WE THE PEOPLE got to the 4th of July,1776 1/2 www.examiner.com/article/natural-law-how-we-the-people-got-to-the-4th-of-july-1776-part-1-of-2
 * Natural Law:How WE THE PEOPLE got to the 4th of July,1776 2/2 www.examiner.com/article/natural-law-how-we-the-people-got-to-the-4th-of-july-1776-part-2-of-2

This is my own personal research and this information would enhance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

I am tired of Progressive Educated Elites trying to rewrite history. Wikipedia's rules inherently give an advantage to Progressive Educated Elites rewriting history. Progressive Educated Elites (often paid political operatives) then rewrite history to conform with the progressive agenda and goals, and then post them in alleged "Scholarly" publications. Wikipedia rules make it virtually impossible to refute these fraudulent rewrites. First, in not having credentials and/or access to these publications and/or not having the time, money and resources to gather a the basis for a rebuttal and then get it published in a white listed publication. To wit, this is a formula that makes Wikipedia complicit in the destruction of the American masses knowledge of Natural Law and the gradual dissolution of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.

CynicalPatriot — Preceding unsigned comment added by CynicalPatriot (talk • contribs) 06:12, 13 October 2014‎


 * You say 'this is my own personal research', and 'I am tired of Progressive Educated Elites trying to rewrite history' .. I am sorry if I misunderstand, but it appears that you are here suggesting to use your own research and publication to prove a point on Wikipedia, and have published that research on a site that has no editorial oversight ánd provides you with a cash advantage for every incoming reader. That does not make these sources suitable as a reliable source.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * because you're not here to build the encyclopedia and per WP:TRUTH. MER-C 05:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

www.cbronline.com
Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

Explain why the site should be whitelisted - The bot is simply making a mistake and incorrectly matching cbronline.com

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link - The article Richard Prout, which is a bio of the living entrepreneur but has nothing whatsoever to do with the bcbonline match.

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added - www.cbronline.com/news/intracus_bundles_staff_browser_with_netscape_product.

Thank you for your help. Very new to this, so please excuse. What happens next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.212.63 (talk • contribs)


 * . There is no mistake, cbronline.com is the targetted link. As this is from the news section of cbronline, I expect that it can be replaced with the primary report.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

moneyweek.com/john-studzinski-banker-philanthropist-and-anglophile/


Good biographical article on John J. Studzinski. I'd like to use it to flesh out the current Wikipedia article. Also, it gives some quotes from a 2002 article in The Times, which is unavailable for public view except at institutions which subscribe to The Times digital archive. Softlavender (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * {{declined}. If you need it only for quotes in The Times, then you should cite The Times directly, regardless of whether it is available to non-subscribers. That is better than indirectly referencing it like you are suggesting. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

www.kavkazcenter.com
Relevant source for articles relating to the insurgency in the North Caucasus. The site's own article displays a prominent blacklist warning. 3hunna (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We will not whitelist the main domain as such, we need a full page, e.g. an index.htm, index.php or about.htm. Please see /Common requests for more info.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , no response. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

www.bollyguide.com
Relevant source for articles relating to the Heropanti box office collection and many more bollywood movies box office collections, reviews & news.


 * . You seem to want the entire website removed from the blacklist. That's not what this page is for. If you want the entire site to be removed from the blacklist, ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

www.museum.moedling.at.tf
Why? It is a website of a museum for an Austrian city named and in Mödling and refers just to its history. Which articles? At least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6dling
 * specific link: www.museum.moedling.at.tf

Further you can see that the home page of this city refers to its history museum also to the above website: www.moedling.at/system/web/gelbeseite.aspx?typ=8&bezirkonr=0&detailonr=221166536&menuonr=221031552 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esilence (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * the website is the homepage of the museum of that city. please someone check and put to whitelist. Esilence (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're asking why the site was blacklisted, then the answer to this should be searchable. You can search for it as well as anybody else can.


 * You seem to want the entire website removed from the blacklist. That's not what this page is for. If you want the entire site to be removed from the blacklist, ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * at.tf is a redirect domain, and blacklisted on meta. Generally, redirect sites are not to be used per this part of the external links guideline.  You are looking for http://home.tele2.at/museum/, the non-redirected site.   --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you Dirk, that helps me alot! how did you find out that it was redirect? So I will change the link on wiki article to that what you posted. cheers Esilence (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The .at.tf tld was blacklisted on meta for practically being a redirect site - many of the pages on that site are like the pages on .tk, they only contain a boilerplate page which loads the data from somewhere else on the web (they generally contain a &lt;frame source=real-url>-code. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

functionspace.org
It has been brought to our notice by one of our users (Anirban Bandyopadhyay) that we have been blacklisted by Wikipedia. In a recent event, Function Space data wasn’t fetched by Wikipedia. Function Space is a social learning network for science. It has a wealth of knowledge for science lovers, that is shared by users through articles and discussions. There have been instances where we have provided authentic, detailed, and crisp information to our users on topics that fall under the umbrella of science. Articles related to Math and Science can get more information from the platform. It would be really helpful, if you could specify the exact nature of violation that led to the ban. We'll do everything in our capacity so that we can avoid such cases in the future. Wikipedia has been a one stop information center for all topics under the sun and it is very important for a site like ours to not be blacklisted on your esteemed platform. Since it is a user-driven site, I request you to lift the ban on us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotuslost (talk • contribs)
 * You may want to review why this was added: continued spamming even after promising to stop: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. If that promise is so hollow, then this has a rightful place on the blacklist.  Specific links which can be shown to have merit on a certain page on Wikipedia can be whitelisted.  Certainly not the whole domain: .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for sharing your feedback with us. These postings were not done from Function Space team. If this repeats, we will definitely take a legal action against the one who is doing it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotuslost (talk • contribs)
 * In a way, it does not matter who abused the link on Wikipedia - the spam-blacklist is built to stop the abuse. The people who were pushing the link were asked to stop, they promised to stop, but did not (or did, but others continued).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

cc.bingj.com
Hi, there I just made a user talk page (here), but the site won't allow me post the links. Any help please? Thanks... Asoccer maniac (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC) PS The offending links: (Yahoo cache) and  (Yahoo cache). Reason: Personal user page. The site won't let me post the link that I'm applying to get permission. Ironic, no, this vicious circle? Instruction: truncate each b from cc.bingj.comb. Asoccer maniac (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . If this is for your personal user page, then use the link without the 'http' prefix. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And how may I do that? I don't undestand. Asoccer maniac (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

brianwernham.wordpress.com
The page http://brianwernham.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/cheesegrater-building-at-122-leadenhall-street-design-based-on-wolfram-rule-122/, Cheesegrater building at 122 Leadenhall Street at http://brianwernham.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/cheesegrater-building-at-122-leadenhall-street-design-based-on-wolfram-rule-122 is directly relevant to the page 122 Leadenhall Street This design insight is important for architectural students.
 * , nothing to do. You had no problem posting those links here, so, obviously, they are not blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

www.scriptureearth.org/00i-Scripture_Index.php?sortby=lang&name=emp&ROD_Code=00000#
I'm working on the page for the Emberá people, in which I mention the bible translation into the Emberá language. In addition to citing the publication directly, I use this website as a gateway to sources of information about it, including sample readings.--Sublimesam (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emberá People was the article you were working on (I fixed the syntax so the link would work). I see it went live at Emberá people on 13 December 2013. Congratulations! But sorry, Wikipedia is not intended to be a means of sending visitors to your "gateway to sources of information about it". I believe your request will be denied. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I might be able to go for this actually. Would need explanation on how it is outside WP:ELNO item 1 though. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll review this one further. scriptureearth.org was globally blacklisted at 02:31, 29 October 2009, per a WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/scriptureearth.org report last updated on that date. It's easy to see the issue. An editor was deemed to be spamming many category:languages articles with links to a site which had Bible translations into all of the linked languages, e.g., see this diff, which was reverted four days later. Then in February 2010, this information was added by the same editor, just without an external link this time. That was allowed to stand, as today Mazatecan languages has a section #Media that still mentions that the New Testament is available on that website, but without the link to it. Meanwhile there is also a link to a Bible translation on Jehovah's Witnesses' site, albeit a dead-but-likely fixable-link, leading one to ask why if links to the Scripture Earth website owned by Wycliffe Canada are not acceptable, links to the JW site are. A look at the http://www.jw.org/en/publications/ drop-down menu shows that there is the potential for "spamming" a lot of our languages articles with links to Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of the Bible. And of course we would not want to be seen discriminating against other religions, so if we let one holy book translation onto languages articles then we probably should allow them all. I'm not sure I see the case for selective whitelisting here; I doubt that the Bible is the only book ever published in this language. I think either we allow this practice globally, or we don't allow it at all. We have an entire area of the encyclopedia that covers this – see List of Bible translations by language. Note that that article has just one external link:
 * WorldBibles.org lists over 14,000 internet links to Bibles, New Testaments and portions in over four thousand languages.
 * I just don't see it, but "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" is a little unclear to me too. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

google.com/cse/ and all pages whose url begins with it
I was pointed here after making what was apparently a misplaced request for removal from the blacklist. It seems all links to Custom Search Engines on Google were blacklisted for some reason. However, I have created two of these that I hope to turn into tools here/on Tool Labs/wherever. I can't do that, though, until the following 2 URLs are whitelisted: www.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=003285824986883509686:2wwqv9fcnrk and www.google.com:443/cse/publicurl?cx=003285824986883509686:_shqdwlwdxk
 * Yes, they were blacklisted for a good reason: they were abused, and they have a high potential for being abused. You should be able to use them on Tool Labs without problem, if you want to use them here the specific links need to be whitelisted.  Would you mind disclosing what the tools are for (for the record of the whitelisting)?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

www.gayot.com/restaurants/wing-lei-las-vegas-nv-89109_4lv050901-09.html
Following previous gayot links (1, 2, 3, etc.), I seek to use it in Richard Chen which has information duplicated nowhere else. These discussions ok whitelisting gayot.com links. Richardc020 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * What makes that a definitive source according to Reliable sources? Just b/c it is not listed elsewhere means that it should be used, it needs to be a reliable source. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Fondation Louis Vuitton
To be able to link to the site of Fondation Louis Vuitton, a museum and cultural centre in Paris, what would be the best way forward: have it whitelisted here, or amend the regex which blacklists it? Superp (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * - What is the link (if you leave off the 'http://' you will be able to save the link here). It is difficult to suggest a proper way of action without knowing (whether it is a spammed site, or an accidental-catch (we've had A LOT of Louis Vuitton spam; likely for fake items).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. The link is www.fondationlouisvuitton.fr . If you want a quick read up from an independent source, the Art Newspaper has a story on the institute. Superp (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That link is indeed caught by the wide net regarding the massive 'handbag/fake-louis-vuitton-bags'-spam from China. The rule on meta has been adapted so it does not cover this specific domain, as it was tripped on multiple wikis.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Superp (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

www.churchesattheleighsandlittlewaltham.co.nr


This link is to the Wordpress website/blog of a group of three churches in Essex, UK as referenced from, for example,Great Leighs. The "free" domain of .co.nr is used simply to reduce costs. We request that the link is whitelisted on this specific Great Leighs page.


 * Why not use the wordpress: http://patwatkinson1.wordpress.com/ ? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the fallback position no doubt if the preferred and formal address for this website is deemed unacceptable due to its use of the .co.nr domain. This formal address has been in use for some years without any problem or comment. It would be useful if someone could explain why this domain is blacklisted. Thanks for your assistance and advice. --Trevor Wright — Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The .co.nr tld is blacklisted because it basically is a redirect-tld (as you see with this site, practically everything is not hosted on this tld but elsewhere, like .co.cc and (to a large extend) .tk - this tld does not differ from what tinyurl does). In principle, we do not use redirect sites, per WP:ELNEVER - they allow linking to sites that are blacklisted, they can be used in an instable way (fine today, tomorrow changed into a phishing site), and one does not necessarily know what happens inbetween (redirecting through another redirect) etc.  That is why redirect sites are blanket blacklisted, and we are generally very weary in allowing them - there is generally no reason to use them, use the end address instead.  That is what I advise here as well (even though in this case the address is stable and the redirect transparent).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, happy to take your advice - Great Leighs page updated. Thanks for your help Dirk. --TrevorWright (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Nowpublic.com
I'm proposing the whitelisting solely for use in the article about nowpublic.com to link to the site. I strongly support maintaining the site on the blacklist for most purposes, but it should be linked in the article about the topic. Whitelisting this wouldn't benefit a specific person. We normally link to a company website in articles about them and this shouldn't be different. Requesting that the specific link nowpublic.com be whitelisted for the article NowPublic. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * for the same reason as your request above is declined. Furthermore, for technical reasons, the whitelist and blacklist can't restrict a link so it can be used only in one article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See above. Now the url nowpublic.com redirects to the examiner one. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * One answer is all we get? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ??? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Still waiting. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, nowpublic.com redirects to examiner.com. Precisely which page within nowpublic.com do you want whitelisted? -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

(here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Sissy Man Blues" on YouTube
Site:
 * youtu.be/bq49tS75xCA

I'd like to whitelist that link only. It's to a youtube recording of an 1934/1935 Decca record and it's to put it in the link of a Reference only. The article in question is about the Americana blue's musician Kokomo Arnold. I've added the reference (number 4 on the article's Reference List), but would like to link to it to so it can be heard in context. Thank you CyntWorkStuff (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq49tS75xCA - the redirect site, youtu.be, is the one that is disallowed (see WP:ELNEVER), not the full link. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * umm, err sorry don't quite know what you mean, I just went to the "Share" area of YouTube and took the link. If there is some otehr way to add te link to the reference I'd be fine with that. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The share are gives you the shortened link 'youtu.be/bq49tS75xCA' unless you ask for the full link (I can't check, I have no access to YouTube here). That shortened link on youtu.be automatically brings you forward to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq49tS75xCA.  That link is to exactly the same video, only avoiding the shortener.  You should use the full link that I use here, not the shortened one.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FIXED Thank you very much for your assistance, the way you suggested worked just fine. Is there anything else I need to do with this entry, or will an Administrator move it to wherever it's now supposed to be? CyntWorkStuff (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * - other solution found. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

www.pulau-pangkor.com
I don't understand why this site is blacklisted - the blacklist page gives no details of when or why. I was trying to link www.pulau-pangkor.com/bruas.html to Beruas. I looked at the site - it all seems perfectly harmless. What do you know I don't? John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Sat 02:30, wikitime=  01:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

offshore-technology.com/projects/corrib/

 * This link is being used in two article Corrib gas project and Geography of Ireland to provide details about the gas finds off the Irish coast. I cannot see a problem with the informational aspects of this website though there are numerous links in other existing articles about different gas and oil fields and related articles to this domain.
 * This link is being used in two article Corrib gas project and Geography of Ireland to provide details about the gas finds off the Irish coast. I cannot see a problem with the informational aspects of this website though there are numerous links in other existing articles about different gas and oil fields and related articles to this domain.


 * I can't find any discussion about blacklisting this domain but see that they offer some procurement services for contractors. That may be an issue, but they contain extensive quantities of useful data about offshore oil and gas that does not appear to be available elsewhere. Perhaps whitelisting the informational areas and blacklisting the promotional areas would be a solution if possible.


 * Personally I am only interested in the mention link but others may be more interested in keeping the other link. Some indication why this was blacklisted would also be good. ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I changed the refs on Corrib to another reference - I believe as you definitely have a better understanding of the subject may see if they are valid. I was spammed by the CBROnline people, owner of the -technology domains; they have been spamming wiki left and right.

To make things worse, I saw that hydrocarbons-technology.com is linked too... must be from the same spammer family. Legionarius (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the rest of these links, so there is now no need to white list. ww2censor (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There are more than 130 articles using offshore-technology.com for references. Changing them one-by-one is not a solution, so the site should be de-blacklisted. All this blacklisting had created more harm than this spammer ever has done. Beagel (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * support whitelisting. Dormskirk (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

examiner.com Orden Ogan interview

 * examiner.com/article/orden-ogan-interview-power-metal-mastermind-discusses-to-the-end
 * examiner.com/article/orden-ogan-interview-power-metal-mastermind-discusses-to-the-end

For Orden Ogan article. Haven't found another with the same info and searching for phrases didn't reveal any obvious plagarism.Jhansonxi (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * (diff) - alternative found. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

z3.invisionfree.com Mike Pollock interview
It contains some useful information for the Sonic X article; it appears not to be replicated anywhere else. It appears to be a legitimate Sonic forum, but I can't cite it yet because of where it's hosted. Tezero (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * z3.invisionfree.com/Sonic_Team_Forum/index.php?showtopic=164
 * z3.invisionfree.com/Sonic_Team_Forum/index.php?showtopic=164

FWIW, the article's a GAN and this source not being accepted may obstruct its review. Tezero (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

This is urgent; the article has gotten a GA review and this source being blacklisted is the only thing holding it up. Please try to address this, someone. Tezero (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC) False alarm; I found some (though not all) of the information elsewhere. I would, however, still like this to be looked at whenever someone gets around to it. Tezero (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/article/new-internet-word-game-now-available



 * WITHDRAWN I have received a reprint from the author of the article as published in the Centerville-Washington Times, so no need to whitelist this link! Thank you for your consideration though. Dcs002 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: After reading other posts on this page about examiner.com articles, I decided to search once again for any alternatives and then completely re-write my rationale here, carefully and completely - and at great length. Dcs002 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Explain why - This site should be whitelisted because:
 * It contains a game review and an interview with the game designer, who is the subject of the WP article.
 * It is written by Danielle Coots, who has real writing credentials (CBS local Cleveland, mostly fluff pieces, freelance work for area newspapers, including local news in the Xenia Gazette), though not a crack journalist. Still, she herself has a journalistic reputation of her own, and to some degree she has to maintain journalistic integrity to keep her job with CBS and her freelance work going. Given that, I think her name might be enough to make this a RS, or as near as one can get from an article in examiner.com.
 * The subject of the WP article is himself a Wikipedian, and he told me about this examiner.com article when I asked him if he could point me to any independent reviews of his games, though he warned me it was a blacklisted source. Since he called my attention to the article (well, he gave me the search terms to look it up myself), that tells me that he does not have any problem with the contents of the article. IMO this a RS, if only for his quotes in the article. The review aspect of the article is kinda fluff, but it contains a very good description of the game. (I tried it myself - it's free online in beta.)
 * This article appears to be the only review of this game on the web.
 * The game's designer (subject of the WP article) has another game with very limited press coverage (though one source is USA Today - it changed how Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon both ran their websites) and two others with no sources that I can find, but he has authored several gaming books that have been well reviewed and sourced. The wider coverage of his reviewed books is making the article disproportionately about his books, though he identifies primarily as a game designer.
 * Game reviews like this just seem harder to find than book reviews - most from the mid 90s through 2003 or so. You prolly get that excuse a lot though :(
 * This article shows that the subject is once again active in game design, or that he has made a one-off release (more likely), which is still a significant part of his game design career. It might be the last game he designs and releases, or it might be a new beginning. The game itself is not notable enough to have good sourcing, but it is important to include it in the WP article for these reasons.
 * The article contains quotes from the subject about a new business partnership he developed to design and release this game and their ongoing efforts to improve the game and move it past its beta version, which is its current status. Those quotes would be of interest to readers who are fans of his work. (Any implications the quotes might have about his possible return to game design would be WP:CRYSTAL of course, and there is no speculation in the article, but readers are free to speculate, as fans do, and fans love information.)
 * Exposure of readers to the examiner.com site will be minimal - only in the list of references.
 * I am in no way affiliated with the author of the article on examiner.com, nor with examiner.com itself, nor with the designer who is the subject of the article. I am just a guy who is trying to expand and improve a worthy article as an alternative to deletion. (I found out he was also a Wikipedian after I began my participation in the AfD discussion, which I think will end with a keep or no consensus. Some have suggested draftify. It has been expanded greatly during the AfD discussion, and there is no consensus to delete, so the issue isn't going to go away.)
 * NOTE: I see no reason to actually make the url a live link. All I want to do is to cite the source so it's verifiable. If there is a proper way to do that without whitelisting the article, I will be happy do that.
 * NOTE: The WP article contains the information from the examiner.com article already. It is cited incompletely though, with no link and no URL - essentially a placeholder citation. It contains roughly the content I wanted to use from this article.


 * 1) Explain which articles - J. Hunter Johnson, which is being expanded as an alternative to deletion, but needs sources like this one.
 * 2) Provide the specific link - www.examiner.com/article/new-internet-word-game-now-available

Dcs002 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Edited Dcs002 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Since this hasn't been reviewed yet, I should add that this article first appeared in a print newspaper, and it is not available from that source online. The newspaper cite is the Centerville-Washington Times, June 20, 2013, p. 10A This was also provided by the Wikipedian subject of the interview as the original source of the review, which is reprinted at the url I am asking to whitelist. I neglected to mention it earlier, but I think it gives it a little more credibility. Sorry this is so long, but I really want to be thorough. Thanks. Dcs002 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: we do not need the source to be online available - Additional thoughts: can examiner.com re-print that article (I presume that the Centerville-Washington Times has the copyright on the original article), and why do we have to link to a copy on a site where the re-publisher gets paid for the incoming links whereas the original is 'freely available' (or, actually credits the original publisher). Note that re-publishing (scraping) of (sometimes copyrighted) information on examiner.com in order to earn money 'over the back of others' is a part of the issues with examiner.com.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, the examiner.com article does not reference the Centerville-Washington Times article at all. The subject of the article (the Wikipedian) is the one who told me it had been originally printed in that paper. I have only his word to go on. I don't know first-hand what it says or that it is identical. I have not seen the article in that newspaper myself, and it is not available from their website or anywhere else I have looked online. I had assumed the author, Danielle Coots, probably retained the copyright. If she were caught violating the copyright by double-dipping with her own article, she stands to lose her career as a journalist.


 * I should stop saying he told me about this article. He posted it in response to my request for independent sources during the AfD. His user name is JHunterJ. Here is exactly what he said:
 * There was an article in a local paper ("Centerville resident develops word game on the web" by Danielle Coots in the Centerville-Washington Times, June 20, 2013, p. 10A) that covered me directly, in connection with another online puzzle-game, Quizgle. It was republished online, but on a site that is apparently on WP's blacklis. Googling "New internet word game now available" coots will bring it up.
 * Again, I am content to cite this article in any way that is appropriate, without live links, or even on JHunterJ's word that it is an exact reprint if that is permissible. (I can see how that would be preferable in many ways.) Would it be appropriate for JHunterJ to add the citation for the print article himself? I've already written the content - it just needs proper sourcing. He's the one who has actually read it. He has been very careful during this process to answer only fair questions and not try to influence anyone. Thanks again. Dcs002 (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN I withdraw this request, as I have received a reprint of the original print article from the author, Danielle Coots. (It is verbatim the same article as appears on the examiner.com website.) There is no further need to whitelist the article. Thank you for your consideration, and for all the work you and your fellow admins do here. You are important gatekeepers, and I appreciate it! Dcs002 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

www.avoiceformen.com/international-conference-on-mens-issues-detroit-june-26-28-2014/
Announcement for a conference coming up in the next month with the potential for news coverage and may be cited on a number of articles of people that are appearing: Warren Farrell, Erin Pizzey, Miles Groth, Barbara Kay, Karen Straughan, Anne Cools, Paul Nathanson, Stefan Molyneux, and perhaps more. --Netoholic @ 07:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * , and OBE. Wikipedia articles should not be used for reporting a schedule of upcoming events anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

companydirectorcheck
Talk:Banc_De_Binary details a bot finding links on the blacklist on the corresponding page. There doesn't seem to be any log entry pertaining to that blacklist entry, so it's hard to know if this is a false positive, if the use of the site on Banc de Binary is appropriate, or if those links should actually be removed. What should I do next? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam and MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2014 where it was grouped with similar domains which where blacklisted at the same time for the same issues. Werieth (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OK. Since it was used on that page for other reasons, how can I sort this out? Pinkbeast (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The normal process is simply to find a better source. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Processing time
Why do these requests take so long to be addressed? There aren't that many of them, and it seems like a pretty straightforward process. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is only very limited manpower, and there is actually some work behind it - will the whitelist re-enable spamming (we can't whitelist the domain - that negates the blacklist often), are there better alternatives (we are not linking to a unreliable, spammy site if the information is available from elsewhere), is the editor a genuine editor (there is the occasional spammer trying to get their links whitelisted, though mostly it is obvious), is the site a redirect (then the proper link has to be found and used), questions asked to the whitelisting-requestor stay unanswered for a long time (which shows how important it is sometimes .. ??), etc. We are all just volunteers here, and with only 3 or 4 active editors here the requests stay sometimes here for months.  Help would be appreciated (and even more on the blacklist, there is a lot of spam that does not get blacklisted, which is way worse than not being able to use the occasional good link).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Surely there's a difference between sites like the Examiner that just aren't very reputable and ones that are known to host viruses, though... Could I at least help with the backlog myself while I wait for mine to get covered? Tezero (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is - but still. Request for the 'official site for the subject of a page' generally results in the return question 'do you have a link to the index.htm or an about page that is suitable' (often with no re-response; we simply can't whitelist the plain domain due to either negating the blacklist or the link being the problem in the first place), requests for whitelisting of redirects (youtu.be, google.com/cse, and even tinyurl.com) etc.
 * And all input/advice is welcome, your help would be much appreciated (though expect a rather steep learning curve, there is often a lot behind a blacklisted link that is not always visible ..). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)