MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2024/06

Lyftboat
Request to Whitelist Lyfboat

Lyfboat is a highly regarded source of information on international healthcare services and medical tourism. It provides in-depth and reliable details about hospitals, treatments, costs, and patient experiences across the globe. This site is beneficial for patients seeking medical care abroad and for those researching healthcare options in different countries. The data on Lyfboat is accurate, independently verified, and presented in an accessible manner.

Beneficial Articles:

Medical Tourism: Lyfboat provides practical resources and detailed information about medical tourism, enriching this article with valuable insights.

Medical Tourism in India: Lyfboat offers specific information about medical tourism in India, including details on hospitals, treatment options, and patient experiences, which would greatly enhance this article.

Healthcare Systems: Articles on healthcare systems in countries covered by Lyfboat can be enhanced with specific data and patient experiences from the site.

Hospital and Doctor Profiles: Wikipedia profiles of hospitals and doctors can include links to Lyfboat’s detailed reviews and information, offering comprehensive perspectives.

Treatment Procedures: Articles on medical treatments and procedures will benefit from the detailed explanations and patient reviews available on Lyfboat.

Specific Link: www.lyfboat.com

Template:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav Gupta India (talk • contribs) 10:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you want this to be considered for whitelisting, you will have to, at the very minimum, provide a specific URL to whitelist and a page to use it on, neither of which is present here. What I suspect you are really looking for is to remove the entire site from the blacklist, which would need to be requested at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist instead. But we pretty much never de-blacklist sites at the request of new users, so this is not going anywhere. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

forbetterscience.com/2023/01/25/the-pullulating-polyps-of-omics/
To provide a reference for Walsh Medical Media being a subdivision of OMICS.

Link:


 * Articles: OMICS Publishing Group, Clinical Schizophrenia & Related Psychoses, and also User:JL-Bot/Questionable.cfg/Publishers for WP:CITEWATCH purposes

Pinging as the original adder of the url to the blacklist. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. I'm just going to assume you know what you're doing in this area. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Request to Whitelist for kickstarter.com/projects/sheilaruth/rekindling-the-fire-rathas-creature-graphic-novel


Why/which articles: On the book's wiki page ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratha%27s_Creature ) and the series's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Books_of_the_Named) I added a section about the Kickstarter campaign. I'd like to cite the main campaign page to show it was fully funded. I'd also like to cite the rewards page to show what was offered.

Links to whitelist:



I'm a relatively new editor, so if this level of citing isn't needed, just let me know. It seemed better to cite though than to expect people to just take my word on the status, rewards, etc.

-- That link doesn't work, sorry. Maybe because it's not top level? I don't need the whole Kickstarter site whitelisted, just: www.kickstarter.com/projects/sheilaruth/rekindling-the-fire-rathas-creature-graphic-novel

and

www.kickstarter.com/projects/sheilaruth/rekindling-the-fire-rathas-creature-graphic-novel/rewards

ThistleChaser (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Normally we prefer to base the content of Wikipedia articles on reliable, secondary sources. If some of them have taken note of the Kickstarter, then you should cite those instead and don't need citations to the kickstarter itself. If none have, then why should Wikipedia? * Pppery * it has begun... 22:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks! I'll do some searching and see if I can find mentions elsewhere. ThistleChaser (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * * Pppery * it has begun... 23:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Would like to be able to link to Fiverr.com in the article about Fiverr
I'm trying to add a link to the official site of the freelancing marketplace Fiverr in the article about that company, but there is apparently a spam filter in place that forbids any link to the fiverr.com domain anywhere on the English Wikipedia. I ran into the same problem on Wikidata.

What I am requesting is to be able to add an external link to www.fiverr.com to the Fiverr article (preferably with the H-T-T-P-S prefix). If linking directly to the top page (even in a single article) is not possible/allowed, then a link to the page www.fiverr.com/news/press-releases would be better than nothing. OnceAndFutureFlopsy (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per /Common requests, we would use this URL instead: * Pppery * it has begun...  23:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 23:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I didn't think of trying the index page URL. OnceAndFutureFlopsy (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a ONE-OFF link to tinyurl.com
The page I wish to link to has a MASSIVE url: https://watermark.silverchair.com/110_1_online.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAABUowggVGBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggU3MIIFMwIBADCCBSwGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMh2h0wxUAgqjRTMdPAgEQgIIE_cNhO0shRu1AwsPkuJlHBhgRJ-22hFnIk44GjijR1tFfURQ9A7fXQmDTqWYxXrlwJSz0cqzL4VenzMViJUQqlkfl3znsomm43HA-FVS7J6-CgP9L7fM0wdT-Hr0eGwow_PuAnYSmbz8jDxp7BfQYPhm8cOjHjU2NueHtM1Eqh-hkz8I56wd_auwdzlWimOYJr41oBgnbU6bmDEftU70j3FrexpVukUthKxI_ZwzX2kBNiyT2C220xYNqkcAc-M1_2WrVrvytETDvWLDFH0Mbth4um33thTZ0-qHxQ7SDGKmO81Acmyn20Rp2syNEXgNeGw3OG26TX3cvrImF6VVyrQKXpZ9wu7UpH9K0quJYu3o-9lbJOJvsMNWrEJgL4pCTwPB5Pj8XAFebpmOYleM1DkUt-eqxKocQ8CsdPZHK-lkjl7et-1go7IdAFvPIGk20qc_wIkTGkAsZxba37HQE0mJq1miH7JTsDPSdaj0wtpMYLqCg7VjhT_PhfYDN3G3johhQcDCVmyNH4SZqiCjidf_2wTKejPCqENBwjsLLvOZq1dCeoICqjUjEu4QHhxMKSb5Dpk_bt0k9iRKe3H1WbNXjy8B7JnVNkgWfWsc__AbmHhnG-rJ6vrg3ohKMmzHNkRHtGOVbRwr2bKp-U0eZQGQhR5L_oLfRfWSplCZlAcLrr_d7GFuWQ7RHLaGxMd1ZgGTscpWpXdw8sifkRSseKjCFvp4T247aDMPcqBmBjIaYPoZm-yMyBdz4mirLo-QaxGP24law9AXsmF_GD8KlUrdg2Er_BJxOno53IwGKFQpMMNVCQfeELHA8B0ivxQ5nzQ5NxBJUce0WycHMaWyPIoPxwAt_G-ITFYcBGmv8TkHo3OtTopRyiW832I5CEfCOXiI2euO0IpHf6sWp1-9tJptZtT4saG66vf54RQkf97KbFEcRALEqfZvuqNbRxrkaQBYih8Uc2rf81OLquOuB4CSQ8Gt1nMQdYmfcO3z_Z-vP-43aKYjIwTv3eaOaMdMI_G8QT67Og88l_xQz3lm6hpTEaAosCsGwsKtOj2mf-L1g8bYCKLrNOyJr8tjzkbPHugZpCR4oz0NW-D8nYv1EiAJn3Es9CT-4MY8bmKrIpyuUXvAuu5us4LDs0P1ffeG4M294YT7T21AknsjuvXfME_65fNf5dtTFVzfKE3ft7cZHORtBE2h9tKnuMyDohq1FqiuzQ9MZTb3AMIiyGpsyVLIfg1Ji6QBYmkIKvUGPa2JNobNWiBf1DlyZgTi3M8-QsEnL3PwhDqpptDdFwu1y-4rKw30li77yf_9ZbFJ0_-YAmrs5FhJZTKDhfwcQLCuvI7DxMTlC-IiPzb0LLB7QH__sL-SwLBwiEe7G0Go2Jf8t_FHVZatROSh4q_W6eepTMw_OW_lMaDI-9gs7FeqHpx-C4czCQZc6IBhqWWGwECNz5pb-gfBa9mp7YndEkN6GxS3jJUy98W8sWQc4LacuIhd-GaKN5Rkg-SDmo6PO41TLyV69dM6r4OFvvZRG7cWBb8DZwuXjMr1oPKyt60A68fWtDwJP515KOX3OqyhYA1OcJCeraY-XAxMYNH0R6Il2b7m33QirfR9XeTMBt6Z2Qpo7LdhoBapDiWvKrwdeM8et07iLVlb4zqUQYwh7uqKb6oPYXLZgv5K4LqUzUjEdXFjJHKIf2a9Yhkj4tQkt

I wish to paste the link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_February_1988#12 under Bernard Lippmann.

I request a one-off use of tinyurl.com to circumvent the use of such a large link. The tinyurl link was created by me: https://tinyurl.***/Bernard-A-Lippman-Obit Bryan Krippner (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * . The aforementioned "massive URL" is now a 404 as it includes access tokens which have expired. Instead of trying to cite the PDF page itself cite the article page that links to the PDF, or better yet the DOI of the article. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is all new to me. I don't understand much of what you said. The PDF comes straight from a google search, so I don't know how to locate the "article page". And I don't understand "access tokens" or "DOI". Bryan Krippner (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bryan Krippner, if you click on either the long URL or the tinyurl, they both go to errors pages. What page did you click on that gave you that long URL? Valereee (talk) 11:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, it came straight from a google search. I don't recall what I searched under. Don't worry - I've removed the link. Bryan Krippner (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Requesting one-off use of a blog hosted on activerain
is blocked due to spam, but the partuclar blog post at contains some local knowledge that I could use at Draft:United States Post Office (Celebration, Florida). –DMartin 19:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What makes this a reliable source? It seems to be a WP:SPS and the author has no credentials on the history of the naming of post offices. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * * Pppery * it has begun... 05:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Old Kickstarter.com links for non-Profit
Hi all! I just rewrote the Musopen page and would like to include three kickstarter links. This non-Profit took off ~10 years ago from a series of (two) viral kickstart fundraisers to commissioned public domain recordings of classical music. These fundraisers are not-active and are merely used for archival reference. Although news sources covered the events, the actual kickstart pages detail the projects, results and details in considerably more detail (as one might expect). I am trying to include three links:


 * A link to the first completed project (in 2010), with the full amount fundraised and extensive project details.
 * A link to the first completed project (in 2010), with the full amount fundraised and extensive project details.


 * An update to the first completed project, explaining the results of which pieces were recorded
 * An update to the first completed project, explaining the results of which pieces were recorded


 * A link to the second completed project (in 2012), with the full amount fundraised and extensive project details.
 * A link to the second completed project (in 2012), with the full amount fundraised and extensive project details.

Thanks,  Aza24  (talk)   20:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm generally skeptical of the need to base content on primary sources (my thinking is if secondary sources mentioned it, use those instead, if no secondary sources mention it why should Wikipedia?), but I'm just going to accept this request instead of trying to argue with someone who clearly knows what they are doing and has much more experience in this topic than I do as other Kickstarters have been whitelisted. to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * it has begun...  05:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the trust. I tend to agree with your hesitancy; in this case, I believe this project was one of the first "big" kickstarters, so it is closely intwined with the site (covered here, for instance). In any case, it seems like you've been single handedly keeping this page alive—thank you!  Aza24  (talk)   05:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

metrotrains-sydney.com.au
metrotrains-sydney.com.au is blocked due to spam (as the URL includes sydney.com.au), however it is the official corporate website for Metro Trains Sydney, preventing it from being included in the article.

Can this domain be whitelisted?

MrBeauGiles (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 01:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

www.verywellhealth.com
PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) This article on myolysis is approachably written, but more importantly for a medical source, not making any extraordinary claims, nor at odds with other reliable sources - seemingly passing WP:MEDRS for at least limited use.
 * 2) It would benefit our article on Myolysis
 * 1) This article on myolysis is approachably written, but more importantly for a medical source, not making any extraordinary claims, nor at odds with other reliable sources - seemingly passing WP:MEDRS for at least limited use.
 * 2) It would benefit our article on Myolysis
 * Is this really a WP:MEDRS? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a WP:MEDPOP, but it's an ok website. It has lots of nice articles. - Manifestation (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Technically, yes - it seems usable for uncontroversial information, in accordance with Identifying reliable sources (medicine). I provided more detail on why I think it's usable at this RSN thread. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * More to the point... this domain was blacklisted in the first place for spam purposes, not for reliability issues. Shouldn't all that's needed for a whitelist request be to show it's not being used as spam? Have I not provided enough proof of reliability? Why is reliability being (apparently) rigorously scrutinized here, and not at WP:RSN? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Anything that even approaches WP:MEDRS is scrutinized rigorously everywhere on Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 07:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is VeryWell on the spam-blacklist when it has never been spammed? - Manifestation (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, but I've shown that this site may be used explicitly per the written guidance in WP:MEDRS. How much longer do I have to wait for someone to approve this? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dennis Brown @Pppery since you two appear to be the only ones patrolling this page, could one of you review this request more thoroughly, and provide an answer? It's frustrating to wait this long in a queue with no path forward. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A lengthy discussion of Verywell occurred in 2020. The thread was opened by User:Beetstra in hopes of getting review of a request by User:Manifestation. It is worth noting that only a link to one single Verywell article is proposed here for whitelisting: . A ping to User:Beetstra is appropriate. He has done a lot of work on spam so he might be able to offer advice about any spam issues that would apply to this link. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For context, that one link was whitelisted by the late, during a time when there were no active admins monitoring requests on this page at all, so doesn't indicate anything other than his specific views. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "The thread was opened by User:Beetstra in hopes of getting review of a request by User:Manifestation."
 * No, that thread was opened by Beetstra to harass me into silence. No one came to my defense at the time. Verywell remains banned to this day, for no good reason. However, on a more positive note, Beetstra did whitelist one url from Verywell Mind. So maybe that site isn't so bad after all, right?
 * A second url, from Verywell Health, was added by the late, as Pppery already pointed out. - Manifestation (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That AN thread went a bit off the rails. It started with Beetstra pointing out a personal attack from Manifestation, and only happened to meander its way toward discussing verywell's usability. What I did see, though, were 2 users who provided specific use cases for verywell that were shut down by the blacklisting. Whitelisting wasn't a preferred option for either of them - SandyGeorgia said they hardly knew about whitelisting at all, and wbm outright calling the whitelist one of the most unpleasant aspects of WP. Add me to that group of editors less than impressed with the whitelist process, for how little attention my request has gotten (before asking at AN).
 * Putting that aside, though, I'd like to process this one whitelist request before diving into a whole 'nother discussion about verywell as a whole. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that three verywell* links were added to the Spam blacklist here in December 2018 by User:JzG. (verywellhealth.com, verywellmind.com and verywellfamily.com). The request was posted at this page. Replying to User:Manifestation: if you believe that User:Beetstra has been harassing you you should make a complaint in the appropriate forum. Beetstra introduces his comments in that thread with "Time for some independent review", which is why I quoted him as posting for review. The 2020 thread does not show you at your best, with your references to 'lying' and so forth. A equally unpleasant exchange occurs in this thread from May 2020. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, those two had a couple of unpleasant exchanges 4 years ago. But I'm hoping we can discuss my request on its owm merit, without any more unpleasantness. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What merits would those be? These are unreliable sources that were spammed. They have no evident value to this project. The fact of an unreliable source carrying an article that is not packed with fringe claims does not magically transform it into a reliable source, and the sourcing standard for medical content (WP:MEDRS) is substantially higher than for routine content. If the content you want to include is not published in a MEDRS source then it doesn't get included. If it is in a MEDRS source then use that. It seems pretty simple to me. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On what basis have you decided verywell is broadly an unreliable source? There have been very few previous discussions about verywell anywhere on WP, and the RSP entry that technically covers verywell is more about their parent company. Even still, that RSP entry lists that family of sources as "no consensus" on reliability, and says Editors find the quality of articles published by About.com to be inconsistent. That sure sounds to me like some articles are high-quality, others are not, and deciding if one counts as an WP:RS is subject to common sense.
 * More to the point, verywell's article on myolysis seems usable for uncontroversial information, explicitly in accordance with Identifying reliable sources (medicine). And other discussions, which EdJohnston linked to, have shown that I'm not the only editor who judges some of their articles to be reliable and worth citation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @JzG since you've replied to others below, would you care to engage with or rebut any my points here? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I did. I disagree with you. Not much more to say, really. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's plenty more you could say. You could provide any examples at all of articles of theirs you're characterizing as "advertorial" or "written by AI." You could clarify why you consider the main purpose of verywell to be selling products as opposed to simply being popular press, when other RS don't get that treatment. You could clarify which part of the WP:MEDRS standard you believe this source fails, considering I've pointed out where in that guideline it's allowed. But of course, you don't have to answer to any of that, and can bow out as you like. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "The 2020 thread does not show you at your best"
 * How DARE you?!?! How can you have the audacity to write something like that?!?! Did you actually READ the threads? Did you SEE the stupidity? Not just by Beetstra, but by others too!
 * Look, let me just give you ONE example, and you tell me what you think, ok? In this thread, on 5 May 2020 09:38, Beetstra wrote this:


 * I still believe it [Verywell] was justly banned, it was abused by multiple editors in a case relating to copyvio material. It was a just way of stopping that abuse.


 * Yes, he wrote that. Beetstra, a decorated admin and prolific spam-fighter with years of experience, believes that blacklisting a website will somehow prevent people from copy-pasting text from that website into Wikipedia. And he repeated this claim the next day, in the same thread.
 * Don't you think this is an immediate red flag? Doesn't this make it look like that something funny is going on? And this is just *one* example. His entire defense was nonsensical. Yet, for some reason, nobody interfered. - Manifestation (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

By Stephanie Brown | Published on April 16, 2024 Fact checked by Nick Blackmer By Alyssa Hui | Updated on April 19, 2024 Fact checked by Nick Blackmer By Lauren Manaker MS, RDN, LD | Updated on April 19, 2024 Fact checked by Nick Blackmer By Team Verywell Health | Updated on April 19, 2024 Fact checked by Marley Hall By Team Verywell Health | Updated on April 19, 2024 Fact checked by Angela Underwood
 * Calling other editors "stupid" is against our policies. This is not the way to address a dispute with another editor. You need to behave yourself, Manifestation. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is Verywell banned? Why isn't it unbanned? - Manifestation (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it was spammed and is unreliable. Right now it has a load of advertorial that appears to have been written by AI, promoting expensive and generally useless products. The purpose of the site is sales, not information. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that there is no good rationale for removing "verywell" sites from the blacklist for reasons already enumerated; that is, it's largely promotional, and most of the content does not meet WP:RS. OhNo itsJamie Talk 12:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you provide links to any verywellhealth sites where they're promoting products? Or ones written by AI? Their article on myolysis is neither of those, and is the purpose of my whitelist request.
 * And the apparent purpose of Verywellhealth is to provide health and wellness information by health professionals. It's pretty apparent their main purpose is to be a consumer-friendly medical information website. They may leverage their popularity to recommend products and make commissions on sales - but other RS do that too, and we don't deprecate the entire site because of it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Are we seeing the same website? Are we living in the same universe? What promotions?? Which products?? Which AI-content?? I have the home page of Verywell Health in front of me right now. Here are the first five articles on the front page as of 14:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC):
 * How Does Cannabis Affect a Workout?
 * 4 Health Benefits of Walking in the Rain, According to Experts
 * These Are the 8 Best Fruit and Veggie Skins to Eat
 * COVID by the Numbers: Spring 2024
 * Flu By the Numbers: April 19, 2024
 * As can already be deduced from the titles, this is a popular press website. In terms of quality, it is similar to such sites as Psychology Today, ScienceDaily, Men's Health, Woman's Day, etc. These offer simplistic, mass-produced articles written in a simplistic language, intended for the general masses. In other words, not a reason to ban the site. - Manifestation (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And I don't think that was the initial reason. The request was made by Jytdog a few days before retiring | being blocked. In Jytdog's contribution history for the day or so before requesting I see several edit summaries saying "spam" or "spammy" where Jytdog removed cites of verywell*. Apparently some editors (some of whom were soon blocked) were adding cites recently. But no evidence was provided that the site is spam, i.e. what we're seeing is: edits are spam by Jytdog's definition, therefore the non-spam site is blacklisted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! Finally someone who actually looks at the evidence. 😊
 * I'm not even sure that Dulanji Perera (5 edits) and Dulanji P (1 edit) are sockpuppets of Mservi68 (2 edits). Their edits don't really resemble each other, and their IP address is a shared IP from Lanka Education and Research Network. However, based on this tiny little case, with a whopping three sock accounts, three Verywell websites were banned, by User:JzG. This was unjustifiable, but JzG and Beetstra do not care, because they don't like the Verywell sites. - Manifestation (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Peter has an idiosyncratic attitude to source reliability, based on many past discussions. You'd be better off asking at WP:RSN. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Classic clickbait. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If that's classic clickbait, then Clickbait contains some serious errors (e.g., "typically deceptive, sensationalized, or otherwise misleading", "an element of dishonesty, using enticements that do not accurately reflect the content being delivered", "A defining characteristic of clickbait is misrepresentation"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Question for User:Pppery: is there anything on this proposed-whitelisted page that is unique? Or is it just a convenient source that could reasonably be replaced by other non-blacklisted sources? DMacks (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't really matter if a source is unique in judging if it's worth using. Particularly medical sources - WP:MEDPOP says that popular press "sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English", and to "use common sense" to evaluate the quality of each individual article from sources like this. That guideline also recommends: "One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source." So there is a legitimate use case for citing sources like verywell in tandem with more scientific, scholarly sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the apparent reluctance of others to whitelist this page, I had hoped to elicit an alternate way forward: either a new and strong argument for why this page should be whitelisted or alternatives that could be used. Taking a seeming argumentative stance with me, who came here by your ow request on another noticeboard, is not helpful. I'm out. DMacks (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Argumentative? You provided a pathway by which my whitelist request could be declined, and I provided relevant information from our policies in support. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He asked for information that might lead to improving an article. You responded by arguing that he didn't need that information, because it would undermine your case to get what you want.  That sounds like being argumentative to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose PhotogenicScientist and Manifestation are trying very hard for this page without making a case for why it has to be this page and none else. If it's only on one site it probably doesn't fit the spirit of MEDRS. Recommend finding a non problematic source. Star   Mississippi  01:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, see my comment above re: WP:MEDPOP. There's nothing wrong with citing popular press like this, even if the information could be gleaned elsewhere. I'm not aware of any policy that says a source requested for whitelisting must be the only source able to be cited for specific information. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're pushing so hard for this page to be whitelisted when by your admission, the info could come from elsewhere. The source is problematic per multiple established editors. Using a different one would be the best and most viable outcome here. Star   Mississippi  13:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pushing for it to be used in the article because it is a plain-English summary of a medical procedure that is approachably written, and falls afoul of neither WP:RS nor WP:MEDRS. Many "established editors" have expressed concerns, but I feel nobody has actually engaged with my arguments to policy, or any of my responses. And if there is some rule that sources cannot be whitelisted if the information can come from elsewhere, nobody has pointed me to it - it seems to be just an unwritten (and imo detrimental) aspect of this whitelist process.
 * This site is caught in a catch-22 between reliability and spam right now. It was deemed spam long ago, on evidence that wasn't clear (by Beetstra's admission). Then its reliability took a hit "due to persistent abuse," that only cited this one spam blacklisting. Now, when you try to discuss its reliability, you get sent to the spam list to get it whitelisted. And if you go to the spam whitelist, everyone goes back to questioning its reliability. It's been a very frustrating 3 weeks trying to work through this.
 * I ask of you - please take a look at the article on myolysis. I can't link it, but the url is at the top of this request. Look it over, and see for yourself if you would consider it a reliable source. If you don't think it's reliable, I would really like to know why, so I can better calibrate on what this site expects in terms of reliability - because I've read RS and MEDRS six ways to sunday, and I don't see any issues with the source. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm coming here without an opinion either way, and I've done ask you asked, and read the entire article you linked at the top of this section.
 * Is it reliable? Maybe. Has it been discussed at WP:RSN?
 * Assuming it's reliable, I am having a hard time figuring out what information that article presents that cannot easily be found in other sources. The Wikipedia article on myolysis already presents (using your own words) "a plain-English summary of a medical procedure that is approachably written". What value would this pop-medical article add? I'm not seeing it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I opened this discussion on RSN a while back. Before that, there had been very little discussion of verywellhealth. I summarized what I could glean from all past discussions in that RSN post.
 * Generally, I agree with you that this article is neither the best nor the only source where information on myolysis can come from. But in my evaluation, it seems like a fine source to use. I appear to be the only one who cares about our article on myolysis here - I already expanded it quite a bit, from rather unhelpful dab page to at least a short article. And I did so largely by citing what other sources I could find. But this article would be useful to fill in content gaps that aren't easily summarizable from other sources - such as a short sentence describing the usage of radiofrequency ablation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I ask of you - please take a look at the article on myolysis. I can't link it, but the url is at the top of this request. Look it over, and see for yourself if you would consider it a reliable source.
 * I did, I came here from WP:AN as an utterly uninvolved admin as I don't think you/Manifest/Beestra and I have had anything but incidental interaction. Others have the standard admin interactions. While this may fit the letter of MEDPOP, I do not think this fits the spirit of what we need in medical articles. There must be better out there. I don't understand the two year (if I'm reading this right) push for this page when time, energy could be spent finding a better source. But we'll agree to disagree and while I oppose it, someone else may feel different. My read here though is there is a fairly strong consensus against it. Star   Mississippi  01:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There must be better out there. Therein lies the rub. Are you volunteering to find a better source yourself? Because I, in the course of putting in work on this article that nobody else seems to care about, have found a reliable-looking source that I think would improve the article. It is policy-compliant, and from reading the rules of the blacklist and whitelisting, I don't see any reason for it to be rejected. Maybe I could find a better source, and maybe I couldn't - but why is it for you to assign me to that task? Why let perfect be the enemy of "good enough?" If there's no solid reason to bar the use of this source except that "vibes are off," that just seems to me to be a terribly unfair outcome.
 * And for what it's worth, I've not spent 2 years pushing for this - it's been 3 weeks. And the only reason I've spent that long on it is because I see some value in the source, and I'm attempting to follow the proper protocol to cite it. It was simply an open tab during my research phase for that article - I saw value in it before I knew the whole domain was blacklisted, and I still see some value in it now. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Well people, it is about time to wrap this up. Conclusion: some users believe it is perfectly ok to use the "spamlist" to block non-spam websites that don't adhere to their ridiculously high demands, quality-wise.

I am extremely disappointed by Wikipedia and the stupidity by certain people on it. Why not be honest about it? Why not say something like this: "I dislike this website, because it is commercial and it has sponsored content. It has mass-produced articles, written for the masses. Therefore, it should be banished from all use."

Following this logic, *many* websites should be banned from Wikipedia. Technology, gaming, movies, science, history, DIY, beauty, travelling. And definitely, we should ban the tabloids, with each url requiring manual approval by an admin, resulting in a bureaucratic hell and a mountain of a backlog.

Some time ago, it was decided to "deprecate" the Daily Mail, a British tabloid. However, that site is not on the banlist, and you can still link to it. Indeed, on rare occasions, writers still do when they're running low on options while creating content. I am honestly mystified why people seem to think that Verywell, of all brands, is such an evil entity that its name should be cursed for all ages.

You can spin this around, and claim that MY demands for ref-quality are below par. But it is actually YOUR astronomical high threshold for source-quality that is the problem. If users like User:Anachronist believe that the Verywell article in question has no added value, then he/she is blind and stupid. I have no other words for it. - Manifestation (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * When you lower yourself to the point where you resort to ad-homenem attacks, you've lost already. Putting your personal attack on me aside, a distinction is to be made between "no value" and "no added value". For the record, I like the article, I think it has value, and I'm neither against nor in favor of whitelisting. Also I'm surprised that so much discussion has arisen for something that shouldn't be controversial. While I don't see any reason to cite it, it would work well in an 'external links' section. But does an external article written for laypersons really enhance a Wikipedia article written for laypersons? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Anachronist, the external link idea is a valid one. Though, this site appears to fail only criteria #1 of WP:ELNO: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." As you pointed out, the verywell article on myolysis is a good, expansive article written for laypeople, and a featured wikipedia article would be a good, expansive article written for laypeople.
 * I will say, the guideline on external links says at the top: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." Which is exactly what I'm trying to do. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Manifestation, I appreciate that you're passionate about this issue that I've raised, but the WP:PAs are totally uncalled for, and wholly unhelpful. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know"
While there does not appear to be consensus to remove the entire verywellhealth.com domain from the spam blacklist at this time, I'd like to focus on the whitelist request as written, which is for the specific Verywell Health article "Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know" ( https://www.verywellhealth.com/myolysis-5189197 ).

, could you please provide an example of the content you would add to the Myolysis article that depends on a citation of this source, and explain how it is compliant with the WP:MEDRS guideline (including WP:MEDPOP)? If there is consensus that the use of this particular article is acceptable, I'll go ahead and add it to the spam whitelist. —  Newslinger  talk   21:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you. In my original draft of this article, I had this verywell article being cited after the sentence "One example of this is laser myolysis, in which a laser is used entirely remove the fibroid, or otherwise clot the blood flow to the fibroid, causing it to die"; this would support the citation I have to NY state dept of health. This style of citation, where more than one source is used, one of them being a popular-press type source, is put forth as an example in WP:MEDRS.
 * In the course of this discussion, I identified another bit of info that I think this source could be used for - a subsection for 'Ultrasound myolysis' at the same heading level as 'Laparoscopic myolysis'. It wouldn't be much, but it could start out with a small explanation of how MRI and ultrasound are used in this application (from the verywell article, "There is another new type of myolysis that is even less invasive..."). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For this use case, Verywell Health serves as a tertiary source that summarizes and cites two other pages, "Uterine Fibroids" (New York State Department of Health) and "Uterine Fibroids" (Brigham and Women's Hospital). I'd like to confirm that this use case is in line with the intention of the sentence "One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source." in WP:MEDPOP, so I've asked WikiProject Medicine at to join the discussion. If there is consensus that this use case is appropriate, then this Verywell Health page will be added to the spam whitelist. —  Newslinger   talk   05:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Newslinger, I think that you and @Star Mississippi are pointing towards the same underlying point, namely that editors have different ideas about why we have citations. Oversimplifying things, I've heard three reasons over the years:
 * We have citations because they help readers learn more about the subject.
 * Obvious consequence: Sources should be selected so that they are useful to readers (e.g., sources written in plain English, widely accessible, free to read).
 * We have citations because they help editors determine whether the article content violates any content policies.
 * Obvious consequence: Sources should demonstrate whatever that individual RecentChanges patroller's personal view of the rules are.  (In practice, that's often higher than what the rules actually say, because if five editors check your work, and the first four think the source is fine, the fifth editor can still revert it for not being good enough in his opinion.)
 * Not-so-obvious consequence: Perception matters, and these editors are usually doing little more than glancing at the source, so an article from an impressive-sounding predatory journal or self-published book is more likely to pass this type of review than an excellent website, especially if you know what the various scripts are looking for in the citation.
 * We have citations because they provide indirect, intangible reputational benefits.
 * Obvious consequence: Sources should be selected to be impressive (e.g., journal articles, technical reference works, prominent experts), even if ordinary people can't read the source (e.g., paywalled) or understand what it says even if they do get a copy.
 * It looks like @PhotogenicScientist is saying that they want readers to be able to use this source to get additional information beyond what should be included in an encyclopedia article. It would be possible to cite impressive sources for the same material, but that wouldn't meet the goal of having a pre-vetted, plain-English source linked in the article.  It sounds like many other editors here fall into one of the other groups, so they're looking for impressive sources rather than readable ones.  Without acknowledging the other side's values, it may be impossible to resolve this.
 * For myself, looking at that article and the rate at which readers click through to sources (roughly 1 in 300 page views), I think one thing is clear: we have already spent more time arguing about the status of this page than any reader would spend reading it during the next five years.  I don't think we would do any harm by whitelisting this one page.  I also don't think it is absolutely necessary to whitelist it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the extremely thoughtful response, . I'm glad to learn that the whitelisting request isn't based on an unreasonable reading of WP:MEDPOP, which was something I needed to verify because I don't edit medicine-related articles very often.
 * My view on the whitelisting process is that any link that could be plausibly used in an appropriate manner should be whitelisted, if doing so would not introduce an unacceptable risk of abuse. Whitelisting does not guarantee the link's placement in an article, since inclusion is a separate editorial decision determined by consensus on the article. Whitelisting only makes inclusion of the link possible.
 * This request seems to be a borderline case, since the Verywell Health page is marginally reliable and the Myolysis article doesn't actually need to cite the page to incorporate the information within the page. The pages summarized by Verywell Health ( and ) also appear to be written for a layperson audience and, in my opinion, aren't significantly more difficult to understand than the Verywell Health page. If Verywell Health were proposed as a more accessible complement to a peer-reviewed journal article, the justification for inclusion would be clearer, but that isn't the situation here.
 * However, since citing the Verywell Health article in the proposed manner doesn't appear to violate any policies, and is considered by some editors to be a standard practice, I would still lean toward whitelisting the link. I don't have a strong opinion on whether Verywell Health should actually be cited in the Myolysis article, but the case for inclusion is acceptably plausible, and I believe we should allow the possibility for sites to be linked in these kinds of borderline cases.
 * I'm going to wait for a few more comments to see whether other editors find this argument reasonable. —  Newslinger  talk   05:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Newslinger just commenting on the practice. Sites get blacklisted because they get spammed or heavily abused (or, in rare cases, because the community decides things are so bad that linking to them should be prohibited).  Unlike vandalism, spam is a form of long term abuse, we have site owners coming back after 10+ years asking for delisting, or see them try other tricks.  Delisting such sites is often a bad idea, we can whitelist specific targets instead. However, some of that material for which we require whitelisting is marginally useful, or there are better sources available.  I, for one, am very reluctant to honor whitelisting material for which there are better sources or which are marginally useful.  The whitelisting is heavily understaffed (as witnessed by how long this request has been standing) and I prefer to use my time on requests that show clear need.  That is not going to be helped if we start en-masse requesting marginally useful and replaceable material, requests that typically need more work to investigate in the first place. Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Beetstra In that case, I believe you're conflating the purposes of the whitelisting process and WP:RSN. All the material I've found relating to the Spam, Blacklist, and Whitelisting process include no requirement, nor even recommendation, that a source must be a shining example of reliability in order to be considered "not spam." The most common mention of reliability in the spam process is to ask "does this source meet the requirements of WP:RS." Which, in my request, the source does.
 * WP:SPAM: "Does the source meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources?"
 * WT:SBL: "Does the site have any validity to the project?" (emphasis mine)
 * WP:WPSPAM: Zero references to reliability
 * WP:ADMINGUIDE/S: Zero references to reliability
 * That approach to whitelist requests is not compliant with policy. Moreover, it makes life needlessly difficult for good-faith editors actually trying to improve articles. As is evident by the number of checks to take before blacklisting in the first place (WP:SPBLIST), and as Newslinger pointed out in this 2020 discussion: Blacklisting sites with a legitimate purpose causes substantial collateral damage, by making it more difficult for editors to use a source correctly.
 * If you want to cross-examine a source for its reliability, that's what WP:RSN is for. Whitelisting does not and should not require that rigorous of a reliability check. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think Beetstra is responding to a more fundamental and practical reality: There are very few admins willing and able to do anti-spam work, and they sometimes need to reject requests to keep their workload manageable.
 * I think we should try to find an alternative link for that article, that meets your main goals (e.g., readable by someone who isn't a medical professional) and isn't on the spam lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable stance to take - there isn't enough manpower to do everything. But rather than denying requests like this, I'd rather see the requests remain open, leaving the possibility that another admin shows up to do the work. Telling someone "not now" when there is nobody available to process the request is fine; but telling them "never" when there isn't any concrete criteria against which their request fails isn't right - especially when criteria do exist, but a particular request fails none of them. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @PhotogenicScientist first, per WAID, I am mainly talking about the manpower issue. Except for the obvious official websites or broad rules (TLDs) you really need to look into stuff and we don’t always have the manpower (or time) to do so.  Pushing too many of such requests will only result in them being ignored, and possibly also ones which are more important. I know that we do not blacklist for unreliability, we blacklist for ‘abuse’.  But the two are not things that can be separated.  Do we really just have to whitelist a site which is utterly unreliable (I’m not talking about VWH), because we are NOT to discuss reliability?  Of course not, we discuss the merit of a site, or the page on it  Do we not blacklist a site that was spammed because it may be useful as a source?  Of course not, we blacklist to stop the abuse. Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Beetstra Do we really just have to whitelist a site which is utterly unreliable (I’m not talking about VWH), because we are NOT to discuss reliability? You're pushing to an extreme I'm not asking for. Multiple times in this discussion, I've alluded to the marginal reliability of the site, and its compliance with WP:RS. Its the level of scrutiny being given to reliability in this forum that I take issue with. Namely, because I started with a thread on RSN to discuss reliability, and was told to come to the whitelist board instead.
 * Do we not blacklist a site that was spammed because it may be useful as a source? Of course not, we blacklist to stop the abuse. In fact, blacklisting isn't the always the best answer here, nor the first. The very first check before blacklisting a site (WP:SPBLIST) is to ask "Does the site have any validity to the project?" That sure sounds like we should be discouraged from blacklisting sites that may be useful as an RS. You're also recommended to fight spam on a user-basis first, by handing out warnings, or blocks. It's also recommended to try page protection, like restricting IP editing, or requiring ECP. That's a lot of avenues to exhaust before moving to the blacklist. And I'm sure you'll agree, those avenues were not all tried when this domain was first put on the blacklist in 2018.
 * What tangible harm is there in whitelisting a marginally reliable site? Especially once it's already been looked into, and the time spent? As I said above, it's not a huge deal to ignore these requests if they're difficult to process - that's the nature of the bureaucracy. But why outright oppose or deny a request like this, at this point?PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This was a case where sockpuppet accounts were being used - that's the main sort of case where the blacklist gets used. Those other methods are not effective when a sockmaster will just move on to another page with a new account. MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to relitigate the initial blacklisting. But the official result of the sockpuppet case - which raged across 2 whole articles, with 8 edits from 3 users - was to protect both articles involved "for a good long while to stop this nonsense." Blacklisting not mentioned, and perhaps overkill. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (Responding to additional text added after my reply) The burden here (An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper) is to show that the Encyclopedia would benefit, not merely not be harmed. It is implied that the benefit would not be available from some other link. If the article in question can be improved without the whitelist, it should be, if only to save on book keeping. - MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is implied that the benefit would not be available from some other link Hard disagree. That isn't discernable in any reasonable reading of any policy on reliable sourcing, nor whitelisting nor blacklisting sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was pushing the extreme. But you do agree that we should not whitelist something that was spammed, blacklisted but totally unreliable.  So then it is fine to discuss reliability at whitelisting.  Here, with a site that is, in your words, marginally reliable we however shouldn’t … ‘Shouldn’t all that's needed for a whitelist request be to show it's not being used as spam?’ .. no, we do have a look at usability, need, and reliability (and I have not, and will not, given my judgement about that for this page, I am just talking about whether or not to look at reliability when whitelisting). Sometimes the only way to stop a persistent sock spamming perfectly useful links is to blacklist.  Again, I am not arguing that for VWH this was such a case (and it was not my decision that this was such a case, nor whether this would become such a case that was stopped early), but we are not here to play whack-a-mole with spam sockfarms, I’m not spending, on the understaffed spam fighting, first weeks of finding, reverting and fighting spam, before considering blacklisting as a last resort.  I will just stop them, and I have done so for very respectable organisations, by taking away their sole possibility of spamming their links.  Sometimes they realise their loss and don’t continue, sometimes they come and complain, sometimes they come back with redirects, some site owners come back trying on a yearly basis, for more than a decade. It is, literally, paying their bills!  Some spammers come and repent, but that is rare.  So I do not necessarily agree that we should exhaust those venues, especially for unreliable or marginally reliable sites, experience learns that those venues do not exhaust.  (And I have seen sockfarms return as soon as sites get removed from the blacklist). There is no harm, there is just limited manpower, and we properly scrutinize usability, reliability, and need before whitelisting.  We need, unfortunately, to avoid flooding the whitelist (and since it is the same set of editors, also the blacklist), resulting in not doing even the ones that really needed. (I claim WP:INVOLVED on judgement in this request, anything I say should not be interpreted as in favour or against whitelisting). Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Newslinger I think you have a good grasp of the purpose of whitelisting, and I agree with pretty much everything you said regarding assessing a requested source's reliability, and its use still being subject to editorial consensus at specific articles. Are you inclined to approve this request? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since this is a noticeboard discussion, the article can only be whitelisted if there is consensus to do so. In this discussion, although I expressed mild support for whitelisting, it does not look like there is consensus to whitelist the article. I recommend citing "Uterine Fibroids" (New York State Department of Health) and "Uterine Fibroids" (Brigham and Women's Hospital) instead of Verywell Health for this case. —  Newslinger  talk   20:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Newslinger, most all of the opposition here is based on the rationale that this isn't worth anyone's time, and that I should go find another source. Very little opposition has been made to the actual reliability of the site. Again, I feel like this is because this is the "spam" whitelist noticeboard, not the "reliability" noticeboard. So, the culmination of this whole discussion is going to be "nobody cares enough to help you, go away." That's really nice. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No editor on Wikipedia can be fortunate enough to see community consensus align with their own views 100% of the time. It does not make sense for me to force the whitelisting when there is no consensus to do so, since it would be reverted and we would end up right where we started. If you feel that my reading of the consensus is incorrect, you are welcome to submit a request for closure for this discussion so that an uninvolved editor can make an independent determination. —  Newslinger  talk   21:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this seriously how "consensus" works? I thought consensus wasn't a simple temperature-taking of the majority opinion - but that strength of argument and alignment with policy were considered highly. Lots of people came into this thread to briefly offer their opinion, but didn't stay to much further engage in discussion. In the course of this discussion, I've offered plenty of documentation in support of whitelisting this source. And if you'd go through this whole discussion (which I don't recommend you do, because it's entirely too long for something that "shouldn't be controversial") you'll see a whole lot of editors who offered replies, but quickly backed off when policies or guidelines in contradiction were brought up. Since almost everyone here agrees that whitelisting this link wouldn't do any harm, and that the link has value if not a ton of value to the project, why can't someone simply approve it? It just doesn't make sense. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You seem to think we stepped away in the face of policy, but @PhotogenicScientist you really need to be aware of badgering. Whether you see it that way or not, your push to keep this open until someone agrees with you (I'd rather see the requests remain open, leaving the possibility that another admin shows up to do the work.) is badgering. The implication that we're not "doing the work" because we don't agree with you is disingenuous. There is no consensus to whitelist this article. I really suggest you move on to something else. Maybe consensus will change. It is not going to at this moment. Star   Mississippi  21:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No editor on Wikipedia can be fortunate enough to see community consensus align with their own views 100% of the time The annoying part here would be watching consensus not align with documented Wikipedia policy. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In response to your previous comment, I did read the entire discussion and my initial comment in this subsection was informed by what every other editor said before me. The spam blacklist guideline provides a wide latitude of discretion and most of the views expressed in this discussion are good-faith judgment calls that do not violate the guideline. But as I said above, if you want a final assessment of this discussion from an uninvolved editor, a closure request is your best bet. —  Newslinger   talk   21:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Very well has had issues with spamming us and is a low quality source. Pick something better like https://www.health.ny.gov/community/adults/women/uterine_fibroids/. This would improve our article by bringing a more international perspective.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)