MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/06

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Approved Requests

deathcamps.org/belzec/gerstein.html

  1. the site should be whitelisted as it is the only place where there is an English translation of the Gerstein Report. There is an online link to a German text (he wrote 2) and the French text can be found in a library.
  2. the article Gerstein Report would benefit from this link as readers would be able to consult the actual text.
  3. I propose to put the text in the section External links as follows:
  • deathcamps.org/belzec/gerstein.html The Gerstein Report (in English)

If there is a better solution for letting readers find out where they can find an English text, please let me know. --Joel Mc (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks,  Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

The Encyclopedia Dramatica Wiki page has deemed notable for inclusion. The article, however, would benefit from links to the page itself, such as its about page. Therefore, requesting that encyclopediadramatica.com be allowed for addition to improve its article. Buspar (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Main page was previously  Done ( http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page), and has been included in the article since 02:35, 19 May 2008. see Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_1#Whitelisted.--Hu12 (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I know. I'm asking if the about page can also be white listed. It's customary to have a link to the main page as well as another page that explains what the site is about in its own words. Buspar (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
no Declined, does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article already contains. Additionaly see arbcom rulings--Hu12 (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

www.invisionfree.com

Just the main page, not any actual forum links. I understand that InvisionFree is currently blacklisted in order to stop forum spam. However, I feel that the article on InvisionFree could be improved with a direct link to the website, while keeping all subpages blacklisted. Dreaded Walrus t c 14:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that does not work. Does the mainpage have an actual page on invisionfree.com, like www.invisionfree.com/main.html or www.invisionfree.com/index.htm? Otherwise this would just result in all of invisionfree to be whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what I feared. Luckily though, while in the process of typing out this response (the rest of which I have since deleted), it turns out that the main page is at invisionfree.com/index.php. Other common main page URLs are all 404s, but if index.php could be whitelisted, would that work? Dreaded Walrus t c 14:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(http://www.invisionfree.com/index.php) is  Done for use in InvisionFree Only. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Jenna Fischer's MySpace blog

I'm working on the article for Booze Cruise (The Office episode), I would like a MySpace blog post (linked can be found below) by Jenna Fischer, an actress on the show unblocked if possible, it contains some behind the scenes information that i have been unable to find anywhere else. Any help or clarification would be much appreciated. Thanks! --Mr.crabby (Talk) 14:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=27753303&blogID=74093617&Mytoken=EDCE6CBE-E94A-4221-87434AE9527735401130460515/

 Done. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Declined Requests

beautynationpl.com

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Hi, I hope the admins can whitelist this website. I have been reading through health topics like menopause, puberty, menstruation etc in wikipedia, and have input more information from this website that is useful for the users. This website provides detailed health information. Thus, I have provided reference links to this website's health info pages, hoping that users who need more health information or have faced some health problems, can refer to this website's health info pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KatH73 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions to wikipedia under Special:Contributions/KatH73 consists entirely of Citation/reference spamming links to beautynationpl.com. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be beautynationpl.com related only. It has become apparent that your account is only being used for self-promotion of beautynationpl.com. Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site.
no Declined and blocked--Hu12 (talk) 03:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

NutrientSearch.com

My name is Adam Nicholson, and I work as the communications director for NutrientSearch.com, formerly known as MarjoenHealth.com. For the following reasons, I respectfully ask that the NutrientSearch.com domain be un-blacklisted and/or whitelisted (all that apply).

Short version:

  • Link to be whitelisted: NutrientSearch.com
  • Page to use link on: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eicosatetraenoic_acid
  • Why link would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper: The article is a stub. Currently, the only cited reference in the article is MarjoenHealth.com, which IS NutrientSearch.com by another, older name that is soon to be phased out. NutrientSearch.com is a data-driven nutritional health website that makes no direct sales of anything and whose interests are best served by providing researched, unadulterated, useful information.

Long version:

In a recent Google search, I was pleasantly surprised to find that our website had been cited as a reference in Wikipedia's article on eicosatetraenoic acid. However, the URL given (marjoenhealth.com/Nutrients/Eicosatetraenoic_acid_(ETA).htm) points to a domain (marjoenhealth.com) that we are phasing out, and the outgoing link directs to a "Page Not Found" error page. I tried to update the link and received a message that our current domain, NutrientSearch.com, is currently blacklisted.

I have searched the following in hope of determining the impetus for the blacklisting:

  • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives
  • meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist
  • meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist/Log
  • meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist/LogPre2008

-- but a ctrl+F search for "nutrientsearch" yields nothing on any of these pages. Admittedly, I am not well versed in the deeper workings of Wikipedia, but having spent all morning searching, I can find no evidence of any reason for NutrientSearch.com's blacklisting and must assume for the nonce that there is none. If the pertinent information is available, would someone please email it to [email protected] so that I may attempt to address the issue?

In the meanwhile, I will address the "spam" issue implied in the generic spam filter notice by stating that our site employs, including me, two people (count 'em: one, two) in total. Thus far all of our efforts have gone to content development, and if I may say so myself, our content is thoroughly researched, high caliber nutritional health information. There is nothing stupid, pointless, or annoying about it, and we are troubled by the "spam" label. Further, we work in our free time and have neither the motivation nor the resources to canvass links or messages at Wikipedia or elsewhere. In fact, the existing link, mentioned above, appears to be the only link to our site on Wikipedia.

As a fledgling website, it is critical for NutrientSearch.com to maintain both credibility and visibility, and we have invested, conservatively, a year and a half's labor to ensure we do so. It feels unfair to us that a seemingly causeless addition of our domain to Wikipedia's blacklist should negatively impact both, as it does not only on the Wikipedia website but through major search engines like Google and Yahoo (searchenginejournal.com/wikipedia-spam-resulting-in-google-yahoo-penalties/5854/).

Again, I request that any and all necessary remedies to NutrientSearch.com's blacklisting -- whether that be removing the domain from blacklists and/or whitelisting the domain -- be enacted by anyone in a position to do so.

Respectfully,

Adam Nicholson, communications director NutrientSearch.com 98.215.229.241 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved.  Not done, see my comment below. MER-C 07:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
A note, then, that this domain was never blacklisted intentionally, but was rather due to a bad regex, since fixed. Commenting on the discussion below, I think some administrators need to keep in mind that this is one crucial area where we interact with the real public. People who are not habitual editors come here with a problem, and are in unfamiliar territory. Furthermore, this deals with matters which may be sensitive to those who make requests here. It behooves us to behave in a corresponding manner. That means that certain types of jokes which are not obvious to those who don't edit wikis often should perhaps be withheld, or made privately. At least, one should consider that being snippy or BITEy and using in-jokes are not helpful in the long run. Please consider how professional you act in the future; this could have been dealt with much better. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to add my ditto to what Mike has said above. I reviewed this case as well and I think the behaviour here and the blatant assumptions of bad faith and the cheery and apparently deliberate BITE violations were a poor reflection on Wikipedia in general. Not all people who come here are spammers and not all are here in bad faith to try to endrun Wikipedia and spam our pages. Some are just genuinely confused. Please consider this in future. Sarah 02:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Suite101

Please whitelist psychic-abilities.suite101.com/article.cfm/precognitive_dreams to be linked with Precognitive Dreams. The article in question contains recent scientific information concerning brainscans. Suite101 is a reliable literature sight maintained by editors that regularly review the quality of work. With 12 years online, over 100,000 articles and 1,000 professional, paid contract writers, Suite101.com is dedicated to delivering quality expertise and writing increasingly rare in the online world. If Suite101 in general could be whitelisted, I thank you. Beverly Hill, User: pnerissaPnerissa (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the request Beverly, unfortunatly the link your asking for is to your article. External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, additionaly;
Suite101 links
  • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
  • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Pnerissa, the global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org
Reference
  • www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/pnerissa
Previous Suite101.com discussions
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

www.suriya-online.com

Hi, can anyone please unblcok www.suriya-online.com I cant even write that link here entirely before I save coz when I wanna save it says its black listed so its really annoying for this is surya sivakumar ( tamil actor)s official website so can anyone please whitelist this website and make it possible to add it entirely on suryas biography page thanks GayaGaya 15 (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

see WikiProject Spam Item see WikiProject Spam Item 2 Administrators' noticeboard?. These sites have been banned because of abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Additional recent Disruption ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] )
Accounts
Gaya 15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Tysonthomas143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
84.13.160.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

pz10.invisionfree.com/Pigeon_Games/index.php?act=idx

Could this be whitelisted as it is important to put onto the Universal Fighting System External links as we are a very promnant team in the UFS community and we would like more players to knwo about our Forum. This would allow them to see up cming events in our area and also would link the UFS commuinity more. Thank you— Team FF (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC).

Forums are links to avoid see External links policy. Forums are also not considered Reliable or Verifiable sources to be used on Wikipedia. Thirdly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a place to to promote a site, or this forum. thanks. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

aluminiumleader.com

This site was blacklisted for being added to such pages as aluminium, bauxite, ruby etc. However, it should be pointed out that aluminiumleader.com is a web resource dedicated especially to aluminium - the history of the metal, its invention, ways of production and utilization. Aluminium is produced from alumina and before that from bauxite. Aluminium oxides are rubies, sapphires and other precious and semi-procious stones mention in the part MINERALS on the site. That is why the links on this web site were added to the respective articles. It is an informative, encyclopaedic, interactive resource in Russian and English without any ads or promotions. Therefore, the site should be removed from the spamlist and added to the pages Aluminium, as well as bauxite and alumina from which aluminium is produced. LOscritor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.248.20.174 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

These links were spammed despite requests to stop. They were also spammed far beyond our English and Russian projectsfrom Afrikaans to Ukrainian:
Please refer to the following guidelines for editors:
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be whitelisted on a page by page basis or removed from the blacklist altogether.
The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

aerobaticteams.net

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.


This site is blacklisted, because of spam and non appropriate information about world's aerobatic display team. BUT this site is a place where have so many information, photos and videos about this kind of thematics, then any other website. There are different pages of each aerobatic team, that could be added to wikipedia's aerobatic teams pages. An exaple: Blue Angels page in wikipedia history ends in 1986, maybe Blue's stop existing since then. An do not any photos about Angels past. Here a link in Blue Angels link section that gives so much info about Blue Angels: http://www.funonthenet.in/articles/airshow-san-francisco.html, and I'm not agree that this page is more appropriate then mine - aerobaticteams.net/Blue_Angels.html. Also official Blue Angels page do not gives more info than yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.76.212 (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone looking at this request may look at the previous contribution to this one by the user & maybe here too ;) --Herby talk thyme 13:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You were asked to stop adding links and you ignored us. I lack confidence in your willingness to abide by our rules and guidelines. Furthermore, you've since spammed a new domain as Herby pointed out:
This needs to be blacklisted also but I don't have time to handle this right now.
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
Should you find yourself penalized in any search engine rankings and you believe that to be a result of blacklisting here, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. We do not have any arrangements with any of the search engine companies; if they're using our blacklist it's purely on their own initiative.
no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Accounts
84.1.47.21 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
77.85.76.212 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
77.85.79.191 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
84.1.240.186 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) *Vandalized this report
New link created (after previous decline) to curcumvent blacklisting Added (aerobaticteams.free.bg). Also adding aerobaticteams to catch other variations. --Hu12 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lulu.com

I'd like to see this site whitelisted because it hosts a lot of published works that would be of interest to people browsing wikipedia articles. For example, Georgina Spelvin has published her autobiography on Lulu.com and it seems a link to that would be of interest to someone who took the time to find her wikipedia article. www.lulu.com Tarheel19845 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarheel19845 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the links to lulu.com that are added are failing many of our policies and guidelines (WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:SPAM). If a certain document on this site is worth a reference for a certain document here, then that specific document can be whitelisted. Hence, no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request to whitelist tutorialspoint.com

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Hi,

I'm the owner of Tutorials Point. I understand an owner's request is not entertained here. But I do feel very sad when I see my educational site in blacklist even though I'm getting 100s of appreciation emails every day for my effort.

My site had been blocked in Dec 2006 because someone had added many wrong URL from my site to wikipedia and after that I have requested couple of times but every time my request got rejected.

In Dec 2006, I also had added couple of URL in wikipedia but my intention was not spamming wiki. I had added them because for few URLs I was getting lot of appreciation from the site visitors and same time I came across wikipedia. So with the same motivation I tried to share it with the world and added them in wikipedia. Same time someone else also added many URLs from my site. Because that time I did not have any account with wikipedia so I could not get any notice that my site links are creating spam at wikipedia otherwise I could have taken appropriate action. Wikipedia's administrator kept posting warnings but I was not aware of those warning because that time I was new to wiki and those warnings were not visible to me.

Here is the link for those warnings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:206.126.170.20/Archive_1

Just because of that one unknowingly mistake this educational site had been blocked and now whenever anybody will go google search for my site then it's name coming with blacklist word.

I would request you please have a look at the site once if you feel this site is a professional site or if its one or two links at wikipedia would be assumed as spam then I would not put my request further.

If you want me to have a voting from my site visitors in favor of white listing it then please let me know. People find this site so useful and they always appreciate me for my effort which I have put to help IT beginners. I'm a teacher in an Indian College but just to help Internet community I write tutorials in my free time.

I would be very happy and it will motivate me further if you could remove my site from blacklist. Trust me, I'm not intended to spam a useful resource like wikipedia. I'm also an author and I understand the pain of spamming as well. Please do the justice.

Thanks Webmaster Tutorialspoint.— Tutorialspoint (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC).


This has been declined repeatedly, by multiple administrators on multiple projects, and is no Declined again. In addition the persistant and repeated nature of Tutorialspoint Webmaster's Forum shopping these process pages is Disruptive and tendentiously made in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and Wikipedia's anti-spam and guidelines. Please Do Not make further requests for delisting of your site.--Hu12 (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you have a solid reason to reject this request. There are many requests over here which were not made by site owner and they were raised by site lovers but you did not try to look into them or you ignored them because of some unknown reasons.
I know very well. there are Wikipedia administrators who are running their sites behind Wikipedia and each & every page of their sites is connected to Wikipedia, I think that is Conflict of interest.
Second think if you say Wikipedia is not vehicle of advertisement then why people around here are so mad about whitelisting their sites and they are crying in front of you ?
Administrators like you are demotivating right people. Poor administrator of this site had put everything in front of you and you again blamed him for spamming....sucks...
Let me tell you ...just because of you Hu12....I won't comeback on this site in future and will definitely tell about this baised behavior to the world specially to all Indian where their site has no weight.
I'm great fan of tutorialspoint and always appreciate their effort they have put in. Hope site owner will read my comments and it will be enough motivation for him to continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.137.218 (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC) — 122.169.137.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Attacking the administrator, Hu12, is not a basis for removing a domain from the blacklist. If an established editor makes a good case for adding a deep link to one of your pages, I'm sure Hu12 or any other admin will consider it with an open mind. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)

Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

Discussion

Criteria for Whitelisting

Can we share any thoughts on these please. I don't see anything specific in the way of pointers so I guess we can make our own.

So far my view have been that is should be

  1. An established editor
  2. Going into a "worthwhile" article
  3. That the editor can be interested enough to present some sort of case
  4. That the whitelisting should be aimed as far as possible at solely what is required

It would be good to have the views of others too. --Herby talk thyme 13:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My two cents:
  • Whitelisting should not open the door to a bunch of spam. This would be most likely if the requested whitelisting was a home page as opposed to a deep link
  • Proposed link must meet the Reliable Sources Guideline and be "encyclopedic".
  • Requester sends money to the whitelisting admin.
--A. B. (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL! If they send enough, maybe we'll even call off the Pornographic Fire Parrot ;-) --Versageek 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Strangely, given recent publicity.... I wondered about putting something on my user page in the form of a "deposit box" :)--Herby talk thyme 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Bearer bonds fit nicely in deposit boxes, and strangely have a calming effect on Fire Parrots--Hu12 (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Adminstrator Herby's "My Two Cents"

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.


I don't know how this will affect chances of redress, but I must say that I find the above discussion of administrator kickbacks for de-blacklisting both inappropriate and objectionable. Please bear in mind the following:

  • You have posted this conversation in a forum where a figure likely approaching 100% of site representatives feel that they have been unjustly treated by administrators, and you are not improving that perception.
  • The very suggestion that sites must pay in order to not be blacklisted fosters corruption and provides incentive to arbitrarily blacklist sites on speculation of profit.
  • Wikipedia is, by its own description, a free and open content project, and the above discussion is antithetical to both.
  • This kind of jarring tangential interjection has a tendency to derail the discussion at hand -- as is evidenced by the breakaway nature of the extortion conversation to the exclusion of the original point.
  • On that note, the first fleeting comment, while in bafflingly poor taste and showing exquisitely poor judgment, might have been written off as facetious. However, the ensuing back-and-forth, including discussion of easy-pay methods and penalties for non-payment makes it more and more difficult to ignore. Even if the whole discussion is dismissed as not serious, each line in the dialogue further erodes your gravitas as an administrator.

That said, and at the risk of political suicide, I suggest you devote your energy here to reviewing site requests for whitelistings, my own included.

Adam Nicholson, communications director NutrientSearch.com 98.215.229.241 (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting - because it was not actually my two cents. I certainly apologise for any offence caused but the issue was on whether we had any specific guidance for whitelisted and offering ideas (in my first post). It is six months old & should have been archived long ago - equally I should not have placed the flippant remark - like all of us here I am a volunteer --Herby talk thyme 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Nicholson's point #1, above. I found this page while reading up on WP policies in general (I'm just a regular editor -- nobody special). I don't know anything about this person or his website/company, and I'm also prone to making potentially objectionable jokes in possibly inappropriate areas with annoyingly winsome glee, but I have to admit this discussion is is very specifically irreverent and should probably be removed, to save the feelings of visitors who were likely already disgruntled before they arrived. I have no doubt that money has never changed hands (and never will) in the processing of whitelisting/blacklisting requests, and that the conversation above is nothing more than workplace banter, but I do think it's literally misplaced. Sugarbat (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
First, <redacted> this is a MediaWiki page and is not a platform for your personal views. Reviewing site requests is always done in line with wikipeda policy and practice. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site for their own profit or adjent. This is fact is true. It is also true that you are here for your comercial and financial adjenda ie. MarjoenHealth.com/ NutrientSearch.com. It's apparent that your account and IP's are only here using wikipedia as platform for self-promotion <redacted>. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, you are here for your own adjena. Faulting trusted, high-volume, etablished administrative volunteers for engaging in harmless humorous banter with other trusted, high-volume etablished volunteers is wholey inapropriate. May want to read;
The MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist is not the Wikipedia complaints department, nor is it intended to help users with their grieving process. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Besides, a quick search using Science Direct shows plenty of hits for "eicosatetraenoic acid". Unlike your website, these papers actually have been (formally) peer reviewed, published in an academic journal and are much better for encyclopedia writing. MER-C 13:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Hu12: Nice! (Your "adjena," I mean.) Sugarbat (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Chomp! chomp! ;) WP:NOT#FORUM, Closed. --Hu12 (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I disagree with the claim that it is apparent this person has come here for purposes of self-promotion and profit. I haven't seen any links showing that this person has engaged in spamming; perhaps I've missed them. Of course, it's possible that's exactly why they've come here but I just don't see where it has been established or how it is apparent. Hu12, please reconsider the way you are treating people here or consider not participating. You complain that this page isn't a platform for personal views but then justify your own stupid comments by saying it's just "trusted, high-volume, established administrative volunteers for engaging in harmless humorous banter with other trusted, high-volume etablished volunteers". Er, double standard, anyone? The page you link to - WP:FORUM - does not give an exemption for administrators, you know. The NOT policy applies equally to everyone, including you. Sarah 02:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Header

I put the header in a template to reduce size of this page and included MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist/Indicators which is loosly based off of RCU's indicators.--Hu12 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam protection

I do not know if he is the right place, but when I try to post on one talk page I get this message "The following link has triggered our spam protection filter:" I tried to use another computer and I got the same message. Can you tell me what is wrong please? I am not adding any link. 89.181.19.14 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please tell us what page you were editing when you got the message and then we can look at it. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is this one: Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Thank you.81.193.32.83 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Should be fine now. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The same problem here. I tried to edit a sentence in the article vegan. I did not try to add a link but I was still spam blocked. Since the spam block bot doesn't give the link which I was supposedly trying to spam, there is nothing I can do. It is very frustrating. Vapour (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Per-page whitelisting

Is it possible to do per-page whitelisting, similar to the bad image list? Thanks in advance, Iamunknown 08:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


A proposed bot (SquelchBot) to automatically revert the addition of certain external links

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Freerepublic

This has been blacklisted after discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. But because the link was used as an illustration in the discussion, editing of that page is now blocked. I tried to get rid of the problem by nowiki-ing the link, but it hasn't worked. Could you help me unlock that page. Many thanks.Itsmejudith (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/06&oldid=1109327984"