MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2015/10

examiner.com/article/actor-ric-young-on-hawaii-five-o


SidP (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Article by Ed Moy is well researched and directly about actor Ric Young; would be useful for the article on him.
 * 2) Includes quotes by Young relevant to the specific subject matter of the article. There are not many articles about this actor who has been in supporting roles for about 50 years.
 * 3) I recognize that examiner.com as a website is a red flag, but the article here appears to be reliable and much more than self-serving. It also attributes some of its facts to other sources.
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 08:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Ole Hanson


Request whitelisting of www.sanclemente.com/ole_hanson.php. I have no idea why it was blacklisted to begin with, it is a newspaper link needed to provide verifiability for the article Ole Hanson. I put spaces in the URL since this idiotic blacklist protocol won't even let me post the full URL of the link I am appealing to be whitelisted. Nice. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * For reference: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2009. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

manning.com/about/index.html


Using a valid link to the About Us page of manning.com in the Wikipedia article on Manning Publications would seem to fall within the 'General exceptions' section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests and I would like to ask for this link to be whitelisted on this page, since in this instance, the link would normally be regarded as leading to the official site of the subject of the article.

Richard asr (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Utility Warehouse
I am trying to update the address for the UK's sixth largest energy company, the Utility Warehouse. They are a FTSE listed company. Historically, customers were able to create subdirectories on this site and this led to abuse. This is no longer the case and spam abuse will no longer be an issue. --Sspyrou (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * formatting fixed. Mdann52 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . This was SEO-spammed with some other domains back in 2007 (I am not sure if it were just customers spamming).  We could consider a de-list after this time ( (we'd have to see whether it really stopped then) or we need a specific index-page or about-page (full url) to be whitelisted.  The latter may be preferred in case of SEO spamming ...  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts as to whether this is a good faith request. Also, you have closed the deblacklisting request as defer here so you have a loop. MER-C 11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The loop did not occur to me (I struck the referral back) - however, I think that my latter suggestion is preferred. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * . Thanks Dirk. The specific index-page URL for whitelisting is www.utilitywarehouse.co.uk/. N.B. I have inserted and extra space before the TLD in order to be able to save it here. I'm confident that there there will be no third party spamming moving forward as members no longer have their own profile URLs.

I'd also like to quote a message from their Head of Communications; "Please be reassured that we have a very strict anti-spam policy, and dismiss any distributors that are responsible for spam. We’ve really ramped up our monitoring and policing of this, and would be confident that the past issues are unlikely to repeat themselves son such a scale. Wikipedia will be one of the primary sites we monitor and police."

What do I need to do next? Thanks again. --Sspyrou (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We can not whitelist the home domain, we will only whitelist the about-page (preferred) or possibly an index.htm-like page. SEO spamming is not instigated by the SEO company, it is instigated by the owners of a site - they were responsible for the spamming, and as this site has no wide-use, I oppose removal from blacklists or blanket-whitelisting of the whole domain.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . Thanks. Here you are: www.utilitywarehouse.co.uk/index.html (N.B. I have inserted and extra space before the TLD in order to be able to save it here.) I will drive home that they are expected to police this well both internally and externally. --Sspyrou (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * . Re whitelisting the specific home page www.utilitywarehouse.co.uk/index.html is there anything else that I or the owners can do in good faith to help this case? The current team behind this domain are entirely different to the one that got it blacklisted and they are will to give any assurances that they will be better guardians. (N.B. I have inserted and extra space before the TLD in order to be able to save it here.). --Sspyrou --Sspyrou (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/

 * z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club
 * z3.invisionfree.com/The_110_Club

2. Used by MANY members of the Gerontology Research Group, and one of the few message boards that are indeed reliable sources. Many cases of supercentenarian claims have been validated or debunked by its members. DN-boards1 (talk) 04:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a web forum with no evidence of reliability. The fact that the GRG uses it as a source says more about the GRG's reliability than the forum. The GRG spam is bad enough and the forum members can go tell the GRG to remove the names from the GRG's verified tables so it'll be removed here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Support. This is a criticial source for our longevity articles. 166.170.48.182 (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Closed. Started by a sock of an indef-blocked user, only support by an IP which is topic-banned from gerontology subjects. Black Kite (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

YouTube video World's Oldest Science Journal - Objectivity #17

 * youtu.be/QE0DCaw7EDY

This is a grand look at a staple of science: the first scientific journal, talked about by the president of the Royal Society. I am using it to describe how Cassini and Hooke may have seen a shadow rather than the Great Red Spot. &mdash; Supuhstar * &mdash; 21:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * youtu.be is blocked as a URL shortener but the full URL is not. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

examiner.com (two sports related pages)

 * examiner.com/article/freedom-pro-baseball-league-may-be-latest-arizona-independent-casualty
 * examiner.com/article/freedom-league-to-return-2015-says-joe-sperle

I'd like these two articles from examiner.com to be white listed so I can use them as sources relating to the demise of the Freedom Pro Baseball League. This sports reporter seems to be reliable and his articles feature quotes and interviews related to the status of the league that I can not find in any other online sources. I had trouble even listing the links here for review so i had to remove the http:// part but you can see the content of the requested links. I know there have been issues with this website but I'd like these particular articles approved. Spanneraol (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes.. I'm asking for these two pages... not the entire website. Spanneraol (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So you'll be aware that examiner.com is user-authored with no editorial oversight and not a reliable source then. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Stifle, did you even look at the two pages I asked for or my reasons for wanting them? Or do you just summarily decline things cause you feel like it? Thats just a shitty reason you know. Some of the sports reporting on there is very good and by decent writers. The writer of these articles is a credible source, look at his bio. Don't just reject things out of hand as there is no other place to find this info. Spanneraol (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Fisheaters.com (One Page) - One Article: Entry "Traditional Catholicism"
I'm writing to request that there be allowed a link to a page at fisheaters.com on the entry "Traditional Catholicism." FishEaters is one of the, if not the, oldest traditional Catholic websites on the internet, it's used in RCIA classes (especially those organized by priests of the FSSP), it's cited in books, newspapers, parish bulletins, and magazines. The page I would like to link to: fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html All varieties of traditional Catholics would find the site helpful and informative, and Wikipedia visitors wanting to research traditional Catholicism" would find that page a scholarly jumping-off point. Thanks. Schoemann (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved this request down toward the bottom so it won't get lost in the shuffle, and renamed the heading to be more in accord with the guidelines. I hope both of these things are okay. Schoemann (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I say no to this, the domain was relentlessly spammed and there's likely to be a better source for anything of merit. The site is biased, as evidence the title of the very page requested: "traditional" rather than "traditionalist". Most Catholics are not of this view. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand you, Guy. "Traditional" and "Traditionalist" mean the same thing in the Traditional/ist Catholic world. They're known colloquially as "trads." The entry I'm wanting to add it to is the entry "Traditionalist Catholicism", and it's a traditionalist Catholic website. I know that most Catholics aren't of that view, but traditional Catholics are, the entry in question is "Traditionalist Catholicism," and the website is called "FishEaters: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism". I don't think there'd be a better source for the topic of Traditional Catholicism. The site is one of the oldest traditional Catholic websites on the internet, and it's used by priests and catechists, has been cited in magazines and books. I think the only traditional Catholic website that is older is one made by someone who goes by the name"Father Moderator", but he's a sedevacantist, which most traditional Catholics aren't. The FishEaters website is also extremely comprehensive and well-written. There really isn't another site like it that I've seen, and I, myself, am a traditionalist Catholic and know pretty well what's available out there in this area. Schoemann (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that the site itself does provide good information and have never agreed to its being blacklisted. I also believe that the accusation of spamming is somewhat overboard. check out this discussion. --evrik (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at old discussions about this, it looks as if the owner added links before there were any rules against it, way, way back in 2005. He argued that point, sought remediation against an editor who warred with him about his having added links, but got blacklisted in the middle of it all -- in essence, blacklisted for breaking a rule that then didn't exist (but does now). I think the site should be de-blacklisted, or at least the page fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html should be white-listed. Preferably, I'd like to add a link to the site itself (fisheaters.com with no specific page inside the site) to the entry "Traditionalist Catholicism" as the Fisheaters site is the best-known, oldest, and most informative traditionalist Catholic website on the internet. Schoemann (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The editor was relentlessly spamming, something that we, in the very beginning of 2005, had a semi policy (an official guideline by the end of 2005) (and we were not writing a soapbox in 2005 either).  Anyway, the relentless spamming (even while discussing) got this site blacklisted.
 * fisheaters.com is not the official site of traditionalist catholicism, it is a site containing a lot of information about it. However, much of the encyclopeadic information about traditionalist catholicism can and should be incorporated in our page itself - as for many other sites, the link may help in better understanding the subject, but the subject can be very well understood without having this external link, and the latter is the reason an external link should be included, we are not writing a linkfarm here.  The specific reference may be appropriate (and maybe other references as well, if this site is so helpful in understanding the topic better), but I must say that references independent from the subject are always better - of course this reference is favourable to the topic of traditionalist catholicism.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's about as "official" as it gets aside from coming straight from the Vatican. It's used in RCIA classes, is cited in books, is recommended by traditionalist priests, for ex. The entry "Traditional Catholicism" is a basic introduction to the topic, but all the ins and outs of traditional Catholicism simply couldn't fit on a single Wiki page. The Fisheaters site is huge -- hundreds and hundreds of pages of material, detailed material that covers pretty much everything. It's like how "Orthodox Judaism" has a Wiki entry, and has external links to sites that explain the religion in greater detail. I think a link to Fisheaters should be allowed from the entry "Traditional Catholicism" in the same way. I'm not wanting to do any "linkfarming"; I just want to add one link to that one entry. Schoemann (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)


 * '.. is about as official as it gets.' There are subjects without official sites, they simply do not get a link to any site because .. they are not there.  The rest of possible external links then have to follow the non-WP:ELOFFICIAL rules of the guideline, and the question then is whether the addition of the link is necessary for the understanding of the subject (if you can understand the topic without having to see the external link, then it likely fails WP:ELNO #1).  And it is not necessary to have all the ins and outs all on Wikipedia, all ins and outs are not necessary for understanding of a topic.
 * The history of this (on and off wikipedia harassment, RfC's, ANI-threads, etc. makes me very reluctant to removal or whitelisting - I really think that this needs to have real necessity to be linked, and for external links I am .. far from convinced that this is necessary (and I would like such requests to be widely discussed by a larger audience including people who are not focused on one subject). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * And there are subjects without official sites that do get links, such as "Orthodox Judaism." I maintain that easy access to more information as provided in links, as with the entry for Orthodox Judaism, is helpful and that it's not a matter of "not being able to understand the topic" without it, but a matter of being able to understand it better, more fully, to explore further. There's simply no way a single entry could cover the information that's on hundreds of pages of the Fisheaters website. Couldn't it be whitelisted for that single entry so that spamming wouldn't be an issue? Schoemann (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We will not whitelist the entire domain but fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html could be done. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a WP:OTHERLINKS-argument (although that was written against spammers, the base argument is the same). We do not include links because other pages have them, we include links because "... its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." (from the external links guideline, with link-adaptation).  This fails [[WP:ELNO #1.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Beetstra, I'm not sure what you mean about not including links "because other pages have them." What pages do you mean? I'm lost. Me, I think the Fisheaters site is relevant and should be included according to the guidelines on the External Links page you linked to. It doesn't fit any of the criteria for "Links normally to be avoided," but does fit the criteria for "What to link" and "What can normally be linked." Specifically, the site is accessible; proper in the context of the article; is functional, has been functional since 1996, and is likely to remain functional; has "accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" because of the sheer volume of information, etc. Stifle, thanks for considering this whitelisting request. I think, though, that the "Being Catholic" section of the site would be the best part of the site to link to, if possible (*/beingcatholic.html). That is the section that has vast amounts of information on traditional Catholic practices (i.e., practices of the priests of the "in-communion-with-Rome" FSSP, ICK, etc., and their parishioners -- all equally pertinent to Catholics who worship "outside the structures," say, with the SSPX). Schoemann (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Schoemann, your argument was 'And there are subjects without official sites that do get links, such as "Orthodox Judaism."' - that is the WP:OTHERLINKS argument I am referring to. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. Sorry, I was lost there for a second. Actually, though, it wasn't my argument that because sites are linked to from "Orthodox Judaism," then, therefore, sites should be linked to from "Traditional Catholicism." I'm saying that FishEaters should be linked to for the same reasons that sites are linked to from the Orthodox Judaism entry -- i.e., to allow Wikipedia readers to have easy access to more information that couldn't possibly be incorporated into the entry for Traditional Catholicism, consistent with the "What to link" and "What can normally be linked" sections of the page you linked to here, and as evident in the links from the "Orthodox Judaism" article. Rather than a link to the FishEaters site itself (if that's seen as not a good idea), a link to the "Being Catholic" section would be very helpful to people wanting to learn about the topic. I nominate the FishEaters site for this because it is so comprehensive, internally hyperlinked really well which makes it good for study, is relevant to any kind of traditionalist Catholic out there (the in communion with Rome types, the SSPX types, the sedevacantists, etc.), is reliable, accurate, the oldest traditional Catholic site out there, etc. One serious problem for traditional Catholics and people wanting to learn about it all is that most entries pertaining to Catholicism deal only with the Novus Ordo way of doing things (or, even worse, talk about present-day traditional practices and phenomena as things Catholics "used to do" or how things "used to be"), but traditional Catholics have their own calender, Ordo Missae, sacramental rites, etc. Trying to emend articles to include traditionalists always ends up in edit wars, with the traditionalists' way of doing things treated as a "minority position" of no importance, even though Pope Benedict XVI published "Summorum Pontificum," and even though priestly societies like the FSSP and ICK exist, as do traditional-style parishes of other types, and even though traditionalism is the fastest growing "sector" of Catholicism in the West. So having a link to FishEaters is a way to address all that. Schoemann (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I said, is that extra information needed for the encyclopedic understanding of the subject. That is what I question.  If people want to get a more-than-encyclopedic understanding of a subject, or even more .., then there is always a search engine to help you find such information.  We are not an indiscriminate source of information.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see Wikipedia as an "indiscriminate source of information" either; I see it as a discriminating one, and as "the" site people go to to learn about a topic, which is exactly why I vote for including a link to FishEaters at the "Traditionalist Catholicism" entry. I mean, why be less informative rather than more informative? I'm not getting it. There's the issue, too, of what I mentioned above, how offering even an encyclopedic understanding of traditional Catholicism is made difficult because of editors with an agenda disallowing a more comprehensive approach to Catholic entries. The entry for traditional Catholicism, though, is set up for the very purpose of teaching about the topic. If the traditional "take" on things like the Rosary or other sacramentals, sacramental rites, the understanding of Vatican II's documents, etc., can't be related on entries for those topics (again, with the trad approach being allowed by Summorum Pontificum, and held by the priests of the FSSP, ICK, etc.), I'd hope at least a link to a website that explains all of that could be had on the entry for traditional Catholicism itself. Schoemann (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The webmaster of that site also sees Wikipedia as THE site people go to, which is why it was spammed here so relentlessly that it got blacklisted. The site's About page says it is a monograph by Tracy, full name not supplied. The site does not pass WP:RS. I understand you're new to Wikipedia, but you have asked for whitelisting of pages on this site before, with your 25th edit. We know that the owner of the site published (and probably still publishes) instructions on challenging the blacklisting. I'm sorry, but your request lacks weight given the history of the site and the lack of history you have. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, the main author's full name is given on that page (see "How to Cite This Website"). It's Tracy Tucciarone. And it's not a monograph; it's a 501c3 charity with a board of directors and a staff (that was recently announced at the discussion forum of that site). I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about the owner of the site publishing (and probably still publishing) instructions on challenging the blacklisting. I've never seen anything like that. Can you point it out to me? Also, I've never asked for this site to be whitelisted before this attempt. Note the date of the request you posted; it is this same request. Schoemann (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Per consensus above, Mdann52 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/article/ashly-burch-talks-voice-acting-and-new-role
Interview with Ashly Burch that I would like to use in a article I'm making about the Adventure Time episode "Breezy", which she guest stars in. The Examiner article was promoted on her Facebook page by herself. Thanks. 23W 20:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sherry Jackson interview - Examiner.com
One interview, in three parts, for use in Sherry Jackson, a WP:BLP.
 * www.examiner.com/article/from-baby-sherry-to-sherry-baby-my-memorable-afternoon-with-sherry-jackson
 * www.examiner.com/article/60-s-chic-k-the-retro-fantasy-world-of-sherry-jackson
 * www.examiner.com/article/the-times-they-are-a-strange-thing-sherry-jackson-and-the-end-of-the-1960s

These articles are taken from a day-long interview conducted 35 years after then end of the actor's career. She talks about her family, early work, financial trouble, on-set experiences, and career determinants, topics which are not covered elsewhere. In particular she talks about the spurious nude scene in Gunn which lurks, inaccurate and unreferenced, in the article.

The interview will be a primary source for details of family and personal life - parents, childhood, financial and career difficulties, creative and professional influences - which are now absent from the article and from her official website. It will support some of her appearances until secondary sources are added; currently none of the Filmography entries are referenced. It might be used for a first-person account of how her career developed as it did. Her career was over long before this interview, so she is in a position to consider it more objectively from a distance than in earlier interviews. (And maybe she does.)

The interviewer is an NYU film studies graduate [www.examiner.com/classic-movie-in-new-york/mel-neuhaus] with apparently a lot of experience writing about film but no paid experience as a film critic or journalist. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, you skipped me! Was that an oversight, or is there something more you need to know before making a decision? Yappy2bhere (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't deal with the requests systematically; in general, concise and brief listings tend to be easier to handle. Have you read /Common requests, on which the page you asked for is listed? Stifle (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

A Voice for Men - www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/conscription-is-slavery/
I am also trying to use a link from this site. It's not clear why it is banned; it seems like a fairly legitimate site. At any rate, the section I am working on is located at my sandbox. The link I am requesting is http://www.avoiceformen .com/mens-rights/conscription-is-slavery/ (I had to put a space in the url to try to get it through...well...the exact filter I'm posting here to try to get past. I'm confused.) Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * This site was thoroughly abused (with threats to continue to abuse until the links stayed). You'll have to comment on why specifically this link is needed (is the information not available elsewhere), etc.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm gathering sources for what seems will end up being its own article on sexism and conscription (or perhaps eventually sexism and the military generally). I have scholarly sources, political figures and court cases related to sexism and conscription, but I would also like to establish that there is some sort of contemporary political activism component to the issue. This article seems to fit the bill, and addresses it from a (seemingly rather) unique standpoint, as forced labor. I suppose I could get by without the source alright, but it addresses the issue of conscription so pointedly that I loath to not include it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * as stale and not a WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

whale.to/cancer/griffin14.html
This site was blocked for spamming. This one page has the introductory remarks for a lecture given by G. Edward Griffin, a fringe theorist. The biographical portion of his page at Wikipedia has no reference. This would be used as the reference to the fringe author's early years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * whale.to/cancer/griffin14.html
 * whale.to/cancer/griffin14.html
 * I am minded to approve this page and will do so unless someone suggests a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the most consistently unreliable site on the entire Internet, and it has no respect for copyright either. Absolutely not. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

www.gayot.com/beer/top10weird-beers/rogue-ales-beard-beer.html
Need reference for Rogue Beard Beer, attempting to pass DYK review. — Brianhe (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please clarify what makes this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

India Net Zone
I would like to check if India Netzone could be unblocked? The site is useful in creating India related articles. Specifically, I was checking an article for referencing a page on Asha Devi Aranyakam, a Padma Shri winner. --jojo@nthony (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not handle full domain whitelistings here - only full links to specific documents on a domain are considered. If you want to have the whole domain available, please see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ Stifle (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

www.healthbase.com/resources/hospitals/singapore/gleneagles-hospital.html


Wanted to use the link on Gleneagles Hospital and Medical Centre but was told it was a site on wikipedia's blacklist. I tried to find it in the global and local spam blacklists but could not find it. Please whitelist it because it provides much information pertaining to Gleneagles Hospital in Singapore. NorrisTan (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What makes this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

www.lausanne-palace.com
For the article Lausanne Palace, I would like to use the official website www.lausanne-palace.com which is blocked because it contains "palace.com". Can you please allow this page? Johndrew Andson (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Please supply an index.html or corresponding page for us to use. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Examiner.com story on lawsuit against Monsanto
Hello. I'd like to be able to link to this link: I would like to use it to reference a mention of this lawsuit to support its mention on the Monsanto legal cases page. The article is titled "Monsanto sued in Los Angeles County for false advertising" and it basically summarizes the lawsuit and reports its filing. SageRad (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * www.examiner.com/article/monsanto-sued-los-angeles-county-for-false-advertising
 * Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Aaron Davidson interview - Examiner.com
A 2011 interview, in two parts, for use in Aaron Davidson, a WP:BLP.
 * www.examiner.com/article/ceo-aaron-davidson-nasl-s-connection-with-traffic-sports-part-1-of-2
 * www.examiner.com/article/davidson-nasl-traffic-and-fifa-training-compensation-solidarity-part-2-of-2

These articles are from a long interview with someone who is now prominently featured in the 2015 FIFA corruption case. I am struggling to find this info elsewhere and is it is a BLP, I would like to reference everything. Edwardx (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Infibeam
Infibeam is one of the India's leading ecommerce website. Infibeam has become India's first E-commerce website to file IPO.Infibeam also owns  Infibeam also owns the DotTripleO domain extension.


 * References:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash207 (talk • contribs)
 * . Request does not in any way indicate how Wikipedia would benefit from having a link to this website. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

www.change.org/p/ellen-k-pao-step-down-as-ceo-of-reddit-inc
This link would be used in the article for Ellen Pao to get the exact number of signatures for the petition (see the Career section).  Ana  r  chyte   10:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For petitions: if that number is of interest then it can be found in independent sources. Do such sources exist?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Declined per /Common requests. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Beacon Press (2 pages)

 * beacon.org/The-Bone-Gatherers-P696.aspx
 * beacon.org/Assets/ClientPages/awards.aspx
 * beacon.org/Assets/ClientPages/awards.aspx

I'd like these two pages whitelisted so I can use them for an entry on Nicola Denzey Lewis (biblical scholar) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dithie/Nicola_Denzey_Lewis First, the subject of the entry published a book with Beacon and it makes sense to link directly to the publisher page when talking about it; second, the awards page provides a citation for the book's award other than the subject's own webpage.Dithie (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * per WP:ELNO item 1. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stifle (or anyone else) can you explain how these links apply to WP:ELNO item 1? It's unclear to me, having read the linked list. How should I provide a citation for my claim that the book won an award otherwise?Dithie (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

=== www.change.org/p/harper-collins-india-in-view-of-the-widespread-plagiarism-found-in-rajiv-malhotra-s-book-indra-s-net-published-by-harper-collins-india-we-call-on-the-publisher-to-make-a-formal-public-apology-and-to-withdraw-the-book-from-the-market? === Please whitelist this link from Change.org as it provides documentary evidence of plagiarism in two books by Hindu evangelist Rajiv Malhotra who is also a member of RSS (termed a terrorist organization). This would help me add a "plagiarism charges" section to the article on Malhotra's book Indra's Net and substantiate the charges with evidence present in the link. Thanks. -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - a change.org petition is NOT a reliable source for providing evidence of plagiarism and should not ever be used for such a serious claim. There is no oversight / editorial control over the text of the petition.  You need to find such claims in a good reliable source.  Change.org is not, nor ever will be, that source. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that a petition may not be RS but did you check the link? The petition contains links to a series of images from Imagur which shows how the text has been lifted from mostly Andrew Nicholson's Unifying Hinduism and a couple of other sources. It is not the petition itself which will be used as evidence but Imagur images comparing Nicholson and others' texts with those of Malhotra present in the petition. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * , per /Common requests. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

sysoon.com
The website was blacklisted a few years ago - including regex term "sysoon" ( globally blacklisted by \bsysoon\b ) becose there is more international websites worldwide sysoon.com, sysoon.uk, sysoon.be, sysoon.de, etc... Please check if blacklist is necessary anymore, becose there is many userful information to use: Funeral and cemeteries resource, more languages suport, easy and fast research. My research show that new owner is not using any bad practices from 2012 to 2015 - WebbyAwards honoree, or see article Article: The rise of the e-funeral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.54.54 (talk • contribs)
 * - Which specific link do you want to use (leave off the http:// and the link will save) and on which specific page does it have its use? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

www.595facts.com


This is the official website of Stand U.P., a group supporting a lawsuit by the Marquette County Road Commission against the United States Environmental Protection Agency regarding the proposed County Road 595. The article already has external links from Save the Wild U.P. and the Keweenaw Bay Indiana Community, groups opposed to the road, so for balance now that there is an official website for a non-governmental group supporting the road, that link should be included for balance. The link is globally blacklisted by.  Imzadi 1979  →   08:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Links are included because they are reliable sources, or these other reasons. We don't add links "for balance"; if anything, the other external links should be removed. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Examiner.com article on a Fiat
www.examiner.com/article/retro-car-revew-1979-1982-fiat-strada-fiat-s-end-of-the-road

This link was already in the article, I just followed it, read it, and found this particular entry to be without any faults worth mentioning. A whitelisting would be useful for Fiat Ritmo.  Mr.choppers &#124;  ✎  01:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of response. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

teluguone.com
sir is the only major resource which is available on internet for Telugu related articles on all categories and more over it is a very old website sir and a prestigious website. It is looking like someone's deliberate attempt to get it on to the blacklist by a throw away accounts .. Please guide me procedure for removal of this url from spam list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queendivz (talk • contribs)
 * As can be seen here Queendivz is one of the spammers that got teluguone.com blacklisted, and hardly the right person to request whitelisting. A request by the same user to remove the site from the blacklist has also just been declined. Thomas.W talk 11:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

companydirectorcheck.com
Iady391 &#124; Talk to me here 16:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It allows us to use valuable informations about companies based in the UK
 * 2) East Asia TV to reference his birthday
 * 3) companydirectorcheck.com/ash-lawliet
 * 4) * companydirectorcheck.com/ash-lawliet
 * , site basically scrapes the official Companies House website and presents the same information except laden with ads. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would you be able to help me incorporate the piece of information from the official website? Iady391 &#124; Talk to me here 21:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not in a position to do that. Try WP:RSN or WP:HD. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/wine-press.html
Requesting whitelisting for use on History of the wine press. This page contains relevant information regarding the historical significance of the wine press in the Bible and ancient times. It also provides a unique image/sketch which depicts a basin that was used to tread grapes and collect juice. This page has a compilation of verses which mention wine presses, thus providing additional context to view the wine press in ancient history which is relevant for anyone researching the topic. 67.1.218.172 (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Spencer
 * as request from an unregistered user without strong rationale. Please obtain the support of an established user or a consensus at WP:RSN that this is a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

www.avaaz.org/en/eu_save_the_internet_spread/
Links to a petition of the org regarding ACTA, linked to on ACTA L.tak (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , per /Common requests we never whitelist petition sites. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Change.org petition link
site: change.org/p/chase-paymentech-process-credit-cards-for-online-condom-purchases-and-end-the-stigma-against-condoms

This site should be whitelisted because the link is to a Change.org petition support Lovability (company) that promotes social action and sexual health education by selling condoms directed towards women. Lovability's wikipedia page includes detailed information about their struggle with Chase bank denying them an account and their successes with the Change.org petition. Please allow the change.org petition link to be included on Lovability's wikipedia page.

Lovability's wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovability_(company)

Jilly89 (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "... is to a Change.org petition support Lovability (company) that promotes ..." .. That is exactly why petition sites are blacklisted, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If this petition is important to be mentioned, it has independent, secondary references saying so, and they can be used to support to mention the petition.  If those do not exist, then the petition should not be mentioned, let alone linked, on Wikipedia.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Requests for blocked URLs to be whitelisted in order to transclude them
The following requests are for whitelisting of pages in order to transclude them onto "all on one page" Wikipedia Signpost editions. There is no need to whitelist them as the links can simply be placed without HTTP or with the nowiki tag in order to save them. However, if it is absolutely indispensable to have the links, I am open to whitelisting them for 24 hours only so that the pages can be saved; as they are unlikely to change in the future, the links will be removed from the whitelist thereafter. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

www.change.org/p/lila-tretikov-remove-new-superprotect-status-and-permit-wikipedia-communities-to-enact-current-software-decisions-uninhibited
This link was used in Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-10/Op-ed but when I went to creating Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-09-10, I found that I had to remove the link in order to save the new page. Since there didn't seem to be a problem with this link when it was included in this Signpost article when it was published, I'd like to get the okay to undo my deletion and add it back into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 14:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest you simply remove the HTTP or nowiki the link so that it saves. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

search.twitter.com/search?q=WikipediaFundraisingSlogans
This link was used in this 2009 article, Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/Fundraiser, before it was blacklisted. I'm now trying to create a single-page version of the November 9, 2009 Signpost issue and this section needs to transclude with the other articles in this edition but I can't create it because of the Twitter link. I also can not just omit this article, the template includes all articles published that week or the page will not be created. The eventual page will be Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/SPV. So you can see what it will eventually look like, here is the previous week's issue: Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-02/SPV.

I'm trying to create a complete, organized archive of Signpost articles since it has been continuously published for over 10 years and I would like to create this page if you will whitelist this link. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest you simply remove the HTTP or place nowiki tags around the link. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

search.twitter.com/search?q=%23wikipediasurvive
This link was used in this 2010 article, Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-15/News and notes, before it was blacklisted. I'm now trying to create a single-page version of the March 15, 2010 Signpost issue and this section needs to transclude with the other articles in this edition but I can't create it because of the Twitter link. I also can not just omit this article, the template includes all articles published that week or the page will not be created. The eventual page will be Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-03-15. So you can see what it will eventually look like, here is the previous week's issue: Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-03-08.

I'm trying to create a complete, organized archive of Signpost articles since it has been continuously published for over 10 years and I would like to create this page if you will whitelist this link. Thank you. Liz <b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

search.twitter.com/search?q=glamwiki
This link was used in this 2010 article, Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-13/Rencontres Wikimédia, before it was blacklisted. I'm now trying to create a single-page version of the December 13, 2010 Signpost issue and this section needs to transclude with the other articles in this edition but I can't create it because of the Twitter link. I also can not just omit this article, the template includes all articles published that week or the page will not be created. The eventual page will be Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-12-13. So you can see what it will eventually look like, here is the previous week's issue: Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-12-06.

I'm trying to create a complete, organized archive of Signpost articles since it has been continuously published for over 10 years and I would like to create this page if you will whitelist this link. Thank you. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

search.twitter.com/search?max_id=16810037871644673&page=3&q=state+library+of+queensland
This link was used in this 2010 article, WWikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-20/Image donation, before it was blacklisted. I'm now trying to create a single-page version of the December 20, 2010 Signpost issue and this section needs to transclude with the other articles in this edition but I can't create it because of the Twitter link. I also can not just omit this article, the template includes all articles published that week or the page will not be created. The eventual page will be Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-12-20. So you can see what it will eventually look like, here is the next week's issue: Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-12-27.

I'm trying to create a complete, organized archive of Signpost articles since it has been continuously published for over 10 years and I would like to create this page if you will whitelist this link. Thank you. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 19:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Suggest you simply remove the HTTP or nowiki the link so that it saves. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

gayot.com
Need to include gayot.com as the official site for André Gayot, a notable food writer, now that an editor has made a WP:POINT of deleting the link. Years ago Gayot, or perhaps a fan of his, spammed the encyclopedia with links to that site so it ended up on the blacklist. The site appears to be professionally published, with multiple paid authors and editorial oversight. Like others similar site, it contains a mixture of reliable factual reporting and personal opinion in the form of critical reviews, awards, and "best of" lists. But for the spamming incident it would be a fair source subject to typical editorial discretion. There is no sign that the COI spam has happened since 2011, but if it returns we can deal with it then. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Before noticing this request, I removed the site from the blacklist because it didn't appear to warrant blacklisting anymore. If spam resumes, we'll probably need to restore it to the blacklist, but per WP:ELOFFICIAL, it will need to continue appearing on his article.  We'll need to whitelist it then in order to prevent bots from tagging the page.  Finally — if you think unblacklisting was an unwise action, please revert me and whitelist it for his article; don't worry about asking my consent or even notifying me.  Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌, no further action required. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

www.missnewjerseyusa.com


triggered by

-- Callinus (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide the full requested data, as per the instructions section, in order for your request to be processed, including:
 * The Wikipedia page that you want to use the link on.
 * An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * article is Janaye Ingram - changed to http://www.missnewjerseyteenusa.com/nj_fame.html - this is a site about a beauty contest, not a spam domain selling bootleg/fake club jerseys. -- Callinus (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * domain is  -- Callinus (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

pro-palo.ru


triggered by

Legitimate domain hit by broad ban. -- Callinus (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - is this rule on meta? I see that there are already 2 exclusions there, maybe this one should be added.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The rule is on meta. The domain appears to no longer be in use (looks like they changed their site name). -- Callinus (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * - I don't understand - is pro-palo.ru not in use anymore? Note that the reason the pro- .ru rule is on meta was to catch a lot of different 'whatever' spam.  If pro-palo is independent (and some of such domains are likely to exist next to a plethora of spammed domains), and of use to be used on Wikipedia, I would suggest to ask for adaptation on meta.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Forget it, the request is withdrawn.-- Callinus (talk) 10:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Archive.is
Useful on Welfare dependency page as http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3359/is_3_36/ai_n28866617/ currently redirects to http://www.search.com/search. Other archiving services, such as the Wayback Machine or WebCite do not (or cannot) have the original URL archived. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 12:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * https://archive.is/vXd4
 * https://archive.is/vXd4
 * , you just linked https://archive.is/vXd4 - which means it is not blacklisted. ❌, nothing to do.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whenever I add the link to the Welfare dependency page, it comes up with this message: "We are sorry, but your edit can not be completed at this time. Your contribution appears to contain a link to archiving service archive.today / archive.is. In accordance with Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC, links to the archive.is family are not allowed to be added to Wikipedia." As I said, I can't find any other archived alternatives, and the current link is dead. Can an exception not be made for this? – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 11:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * this is actually [], so whitelisting here will do nothing. You should raise this at WP:EFN. Mdann52 (talk) 11:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I've added a section over at WP:EFN. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 11:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * ❌, or more precisely nothing to do here. This is an edit filter, not a spam-blacklist issue. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

weightloss.about.com


Appears to be valid use of ELINKS from about.com non-spammy, just hit by "weightloss" in the spam domains list -- Callinus (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please provide the full requested data, as per the instructions section, in order for your request to be processed, including:
 * The Wikipedia page that you want to use the link on.
 * An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper. Stifle (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * no longer needed, not in use on EN. -- Callinus (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

http://agora.guru.ru/display.php?conf=DOGtale&page=conference&PHPSESSID=b1b649f7259bfdd9b37df3a31bd0fb5f
I honestly don't see why that article (or site for that matter) would be blacklisted. It looks like the site of a conference in memory of Grigori Kuzmin, i.e. a perfectly legitimate website. One of the authors of that biography is a respected astronomer with his own Wikipedia article as well: Jaan Einasto. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Link: http://agora.guru.ru/display.php?conf=DOGtale&page=conference&PHPSESSID=b1b649f7259bfdd9b37df3a31bd0fb5f
 * Article: Grigori Kuzmin
 * for removal of \bguru\b, which was added in a good-faith attempt to blacklist the new .guru TLD. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * from blacklist, should be fine now. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

www.game-guru.com

 * Article: The Game Creators
 * Article: The Game Creators

GameGuru is The Game Creators's new name for FPS Creator. They're a notable producer of game creation software, with several of their products having Wikipedia articles (DarkBASIC, The 3D Gamemaker, AppGameKit).

The link should be unblocked because it is a false positive in a sense: the site is entirely legitimate and is not spam. The site is that of one of TGC's flagship products which they are notable for, so it would benefit Wikipedia readers to be able to visit it to find out more information about the product.

Thus, I ask that it be unblocked so that the company's Wikipedia page can link to the website. &mdash;ajf (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * for removal of \bguru\b, which was added in a good-faith attempt to blacklist the new .guru TLD. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * from blacklist, should be fine now. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

myretrotv.com
However in attempting to add the url to Retro Television Network article, I am getting the blacklist block. I have currently comment out the url until it can be fixed. Spshu (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC) That aside, we certainly can provide for an official link to be available. That link needs to be a specific page on the site; it cannot be just the domain name on its own. Commonly for other sites we have used an "about us" page. If anyone would like to file a request in the proper section above, providing such a link, it will be processed in due course. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Appearently do to a Retro TV employee or enthusiast placing this link on all off network TV shows article, the url was black listed except for
 * Retro Television Network
 * List of Retro Television Network affiliates
 * There's no way to blacklist a URL except on certain articles; it's all or nothing. Stifle (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I just found this "discussion" after reporting the same problem last week (after a long wild goose chase involving wrongly-generated messages - a problem which seems to be regularly pointed out and then promptly ignored. Apparently something that was a problem back in 2009 is still so important that the official link for the official page can't be provided. Unbelievable. I thought Admins were supposed to fix problems, not create them. Still having that fund drive, are you? Complaining about the lack of interested volunteers whike you chase them away? 71.23.178.214 (talk) 03:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a technological issue. As admins, we can only work within the parameters of the MediaWiki software engine, and only a very few developers work on improvements to that. Issues such as this, that are minor in the round, don't tend to get as much developer attention.

Discussion archive
I have cleared a lot of the backlog today. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Old requests still in the "Proposed additions" list
Hi, is there a good reasons why requests that have been processed, such as MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist, are still in the section "Proposed additions"? Wouldn't it be more adequate to move them to the "Approved" or "Denied" sections? --a3nm (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Only because nobody has archived or moved them. Feel free to do so. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Ignorant question
Is there a way to whitelist something for use only within a particular namespace? — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No. If something like this were desired the only way around it would be whitelisting + an edit filter. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Tom Clough
The article Tom Clough has a link to some photographs of chanters made by Clough, placed by Andy May on shutterfly. That site has been blacklisted, though it is clear that the relevant page is innocuous. Can an exception be made, at least from this page? I doubt if any other page would need to point there.John Gibbons 3 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please file your request in the appropriate section above rather than the discussion section. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)