MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/10

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

Approved requests

blog.hubpages.com/2008/10/hubs-versus-blogs/

Requesting whitelisting for this exact link on only the HubPages article because it is cited therein as a source. Due to the blacklist, its link is currently broken in the References. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(quick comment) Notice that the author of the blog is part of Hubpage's staff http://hubpages.com/about/, that it's not making outrageous statements and that it's used to source stuff about how hubs work. So, this would be an acceptable source under WP:SELFPUB. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear: I have reviewed the link and the article, and I independently endorse this whitelisting. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to grant this request and will do so in a few days unless someone posts a reason why I should not. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  •  Approved Stifle (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
It's still not letting me fix the link. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Should work now. http://blog.hubpages.com/2008/10/hubs-versus-blogs/ --Hu12 (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

education.stateuniversity.com

Amusingly, I came to this page to request local whitelisting of this page for my sandbox (User:Peace and Passion/SandboxPE), and the first request on this page is for the same thing. I am trying to write an improved PE article in my sandbox, and the only good reference I can find to a point in the history of AAHPERD is on the "education.stateuniversity.com" website (which has a whole section on the history which even the official AAHPERD site doesn't contain). The reference I was trying to include follows - I've never been blocked by the spamlist before and I'm not sure of how it works or the procedure required; but, it told me to request local unprotection here: 

<ref>
{{cite web| 
url =http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1748/American-Alliance-Health-Physical-Education-Recreation-Dance.html | 
title = Program, Organizational Structure, Membership and Financial Support, History and Development| 
publisher =Stateuniversity.com| 
accessdate = 2009-07-28| 
quote= ''[...][T]his group became the American Association for the Advancement of Physical Education. 
[...] In 1903 the organization changed its name to the American Physical Education Association.''}}
</ref>

Realistically, I guess only the specific URL 

http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1748/American-Alliance-Health-Physical-Education-Recreation-Dance.html

needs whitelisting, not the parent education.stateuniversity.com which I titled this request with. It would also be nice if it could be locally whitelisted for the PE article itself, as I plan to import it there at some point. Thanks for your time and consideration, Peace and Passion (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC).

 Done Stifle (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com

Dear Sirs,

Why is link to Cambridge Encyclopedia blacklisted?

I want to use a reference from http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/2246/Bactria.html in Bactria article. Thanks! 202.163.91.163 (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It is blocked arising from this request. I am inclined to grant this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done Stifle (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

patagonianexpeditionrace.com

1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

The site that I want to whitelist is the official site of the race that the article talks about, so it's important to add it as an external link to provide information and guidance related to the article.

2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

It is the article of the patagonian expedition race : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patagonian_expedition_race

3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

The link of the page is patagonianexpeditionrace.com

200.72.157.72 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment:
This link was widely spammed across multiple Wikimedia Foundation projects, leading to its blacklisting at the Global Blacklist on Meta-Wiki. Here's the report:
On the English Wikipedia, the Patagonian Expedition Race article was created and edited by several single purpose accounts. External links to the web site and/or internal links to this article were added to every remotely related article; for example see Special:Contributions/PORTORico.
This race may or may not be notable; I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile#Patagonian Expedition Race asking for help with the article. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I also left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orienteering#Patagonian Expedition Race. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to reject this request as no specific page has been suggested and the request is not from an established editor. I will leave this open for a few days in case a reason to do otherwise arises. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Interesting response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile#Patagonian Expedition Race. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

(reopened) As a established editor, I would to request the whitelisting of this specific page:

  • http://patagonianexpeditionrace.com/en/races.php

I am rewriting a bit the Patagonian_Expedition_Race article and I am using this as a reference for the specific races. The link itself has no info, but the menu at the top allows to see the data for each annual race. I think that this link is unlikely to be spammed. (btw, IMHO, the question of the race being notable belongs more to other places like WP:AFD). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I'll whitelist this specific link, http://www.patagonianexpeditionrace.com/en/races.php, for use in the Patagonian Expedition Race article only. Variations other than the format above, will not work or be linkable. If further abuse is detected, or links appear in articles other than Patagonian Expedition Race the link will be removed from use. As stated above, the general Whitelisting of the sites domain is still no Declined.--Hu12 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much :) Link added to article. I suggest the site owner that he doesn't abuse this link, because then I won't be able to help him if it gets blacklisted again. Also for the site owner, he can leave me a note in User_talk:Enric_Naval if he wants to suggest any other deep link that I can use for reference in the article, and he should also leave a short note in Talk:Patagonian_Expedition_Race with a concise note of why the link is useful to source neutral information in the article so other editors can also see it. I can't guarantee that I will use the links, but at least I will take a look at them and consider them. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Denied requests

suite101.com/article.cfm/canadian_literature/35311 & suite101.com/article.cfm/canadian_literature/35675

"Beth Goobie: Power and Survival" the following copyright notice appears: The copyright of the article Beth Goobie: Power and Survival in Canadian Literature is owned by Paula E. Kirman. Permission to republish Beth Goobie: Power and Survival in print or online must be granted by the author in writing. , do you have any proof that this is a copyright vio? Pohick2 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Suite101 links are blacklisted because the site offers remuneration based on page views, has no editorial oversight, and is not a reliable source. It has nothing to do with copyright. no Declined Stifle (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

invisionfree.com/forums/StockClassPaintball/

Please whitelist invisionfree.com/forums/StockClassPaintball/ There are a number of sub-pages which would be useful references for several of Wikipedia's paintball pages. This particular section of the linked forum: invisionfree.com/forums/StockClassPaintball/index.php?showtopic=1326 has directly relevant discussions to DD68 Redux page.

I am unclear if the entire "invisionfree.com" domain has been blacklisted or if it is only that particular forum. Only the StockClassPaintball forum is of direct relevance, should there be a reason to continue to blacklist invisionfree.com. C.J. (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)cjottawa 20:59EDT, 31 August 2009

  • no Declined, forums are not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I have been asked to reconsider this decision and have declined to do so; out of courtesy I would like to leave the matter open for another admin to look at and will yield to his/her decision. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Forum's are a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. I'm not convinced how Whitelisting the entire StockClassPaintball Forum could be used as as a citation. Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. I do agree with Stifle, no Declined --Hu12 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Consideration appreciated. Online forums have largely displaced traditional publications as outlets for paintball industry-insiders to publish material, findings.C.J. (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

www.andhranews.net

Page to whitelist: www.andhranews.net/India/2007/September/19-Babri-mosque-demolition-16094.asp

This page provides web access to a serious news report. Its exact title and date match certain citations of Yahoo News which are now dead links, and the web archive has no copy. I propose citing (ANI via) AndhraNews.net at the same places inline.

Articles to link from: Babri Mosque, Ayodhya debate, etc.

About other portions of the site I haven't looked, don't know their reputation, and make no request.

Prari (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been blocked due to spamming; see [1]. However, I am inclined to grant this request and will do so in a week or so unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Plenty of reasonable alternatives availiable take your pick;
  • http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/people-in-ayodhya-crave-for-peace-on-babri-masjid-demolition_1007962.html
  • http://www.topnews.in/people-ayodhya-crave-peace-babri-demolition-anniversary-28392
  • http://news.oneindia.in/2007/09/19/babri-mosque-demolition-case-hearing-sept-19.html
andhranews.net is simply a Scraper site Made for adsense News aggreggation. Plenty of sites have archive copies of stories such as this.--Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 Not done. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

www.squidoo.com/VegetableGardenLayout

www.squidoo.com is black listed but www.squidoo.com/VegetableGardenLayout has some info that could help out with the Kitchen garden article. Particularly with the different types of vegetable gardens. 58.107.1.244 (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

squidoo.com 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:
Additionaly Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote your Squidoo page.--Hu12 (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 Not done Stifle (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

www.sajjadalifanclub.co.cc

the site should be whitelisted becuse it is the only fan site of sajjad ali the pop singer of pakistan.
the article which will benefit the user are the album section from where the users can download and get info about all tha albums of sajjad ali
the index page should be added as the users can have full approach to get all the information about sajjad ali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefsab (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

sajjadalifanclub.co.cc

i ve again posted this url to be whitelisted because it relates to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajjad_Ali this page contains much much wrong information but the site requested for white list contains exact and correct info about the artist sajjad ali plz again review the site and kindly whitelist it. this is not a spam site only the site related to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sajjad_Ali thanx again Chiefsab (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Sajjad Ali article seems to be in quite the state. You've added 11 facebook and 24 SAJJADAlIfanclub.co.cc refferences. first this site is a fansite which is a Link normally to be avoided. As for both sites being used as citations, they fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. And yet again as previously MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#www.sajjadalifanclub.co.cc, this is no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

swinefluindia.co.cc/faq.php

Site has no objectionable material. Has good info/faqs on swine flu ans shall help all articles related to swine flu pandemic. Bhavik1st (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

 Not done Site has ads. There are plenty of excellent government and notable medical references with information on this that aren't seeking commercial revenue. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

eHow.com

1.) Explain why the site should be whitelisted. eHow.com is a legitimate community-based information sharing site. This site should be on the Whitelist as it relates to user generated content destinations online.

2.) Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EHow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DemandStudios.com

3.) Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. I cannot link to eHow.com without the site being blocked.

Thank you

SKMetzger (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The article eHow already contains the apropriate link. Additionaly,
eHow.com links
  • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

PornstarGlobal.com

Hello .. we received an inbox of emails this morning letting us know that the PornstarGlobal.com site was 'BlackListed'. Upon initially viewing the rant that was posted on the 'BlackList page', a massive amount of frustration was shown by all of our staff members. The people that develop PornstarGlobal 24-7 have a passion for making it the most spam-free, pop-up free, ad-ware free, spyware-free, clean and zero-harm site possible on a daily basis (Which is why the very first paragraph on the home page is as follows: ("PornstarGlobal is not only the most robust porn star database online, but our paramount user standards continue to provide viewers a premiere pornstar archive which is free of pop-up's and adware. Enthusiasts worldwide continue to make us the who's who of Pornstar info sites. Enjoy -") To call a database of invaluable (and sometimes un-attainable personal info about individual Adult Entertainers) a 'Link Farm' is a slap in the face to people who work extremely hard to find such info. Each of our Bios pages has the same info as any one of your pages but on a smaller scale. PornstarGlobal has been recognized by such organizations as XBIZ: http://www.xbiz.com/news/web/102049 and continues to receive achievement awards from multiple outlets. We challenge you to find another site that has a 'Pornstar Festivals' section in their categories area. there are countless links that simply link to other sites without any affiliate connection whatsoever: Another example could be the 'Links' area which is where you will find links to Industry award shows, clothing lines, and websites that cater to parents in the Industry. The IP's that begin with 9 are obviously 1 workstation (OURS) which changes due to the modem being restarted daily (surprised you don't already know this) and each time we added a link to a Models Wiki page it corresponded directly to her bio on our site NOT to an affiliate link EVER. We did not check back nor ever wonder if our links had been removed as we just assumed they would not be due to the fact that we were providing info that Wikipedia could not in some cases. It was because of this that we did not know they were being removed. as far as the foreign stuff goes, we posted the IP's 9 again, not the others. Please do not confuse us with someone 5000 miles away posting our link on a Wikipedia site, because it is not us. We have many fans, viewers and competitive entities that could be the cause, however as I look at the links I truly don't see an issue unless I am missing something ?? Again .. all the links in question direct to a models bio, nothing affiliate involved at all. In regard to the links we posted, we simply thought we were helping you out and now see that it was a mistake. Please don't take this the wrong way, but Wikipedia External Links not only have no use to us, they are also the last thing on our minds. We do however care about our name being run through the mud and your editors falsely labeling our intentions in a slanderous manner. I advise others to please view the site and understand its concept to gauge for themselves and also kindly ask you to remove the site from any 'BlackLists'. We have no problems with parting ways and never looking back, thank you for your time. 97.113.37.141 (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC) GlobalCorp

UPDATES HERE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals and we are hoping that a non-bias admin will catch wind of this. 97.113.37.141 (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

pickeringchatto.com

I cannot fathom why this extremely respectable academic publishers, whose website includes invaluable information about texts and so would be an informative link from article bibliographies, is blocked. The particular links I was trying to add, to my new article on Mark Philp, are those to the pages on the Collected Political and Philosophical Works of William Godwin (pickeringchatto.com/major_works/the_political_and_philosophical_writings_of_william_godwin) and the Collected Novels and Memoirs of William Godwin (pickeringchatto.com/major_works/the_collected_novels_and_memoirs_of_william_godwin), whose pages provides elucidatory information on the nature of the works referenced.

Ronald Collinson (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It was blocked for spamming; see [2]. In these circumstances, whitelisting will be considered by request of an established user. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  •  Not done Stifle (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

karppa.freeforums.org

I'm the administrator of this site. I created it because the original fansite/message board went down (this site [3] ) and I could not get an reply from the site owner. It has been down for over two months now and the account has been closed. The link to that site no longer works on the wiki page. So I wanted to replace it with my link

This wiki article [4] is where I want to have the site posted at.

The site would benefit this article because anyone who visits the article that are interested in discussing or just chatting about the person or so they can talk with other fans can come to the message board.

And this is the link ( karppa.freeforums.org ) that I'm requesting to to be unblocked from the filter.

I would really appreciate it and so would other fans as well.

Icebox42 (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How does Wikipedia benefit from the whitelisting of your site? MER-C 10:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn, Malformed, Invalid, Cancelled, or Other requests

www.ehow.com/how_5328369_brew-flowering-tea.html

The domain is blacklisted but the advice given at this particular page is sound. It would be used at Flowering tea to source the facts about steeping that I have not been able to source elsewhere. TerriersFan (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Ehow.com links have no editorial oversight and operate on a pay per click basis. I am therefore inclined to reject this request and will do so in a day or two unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
    • OK; in the light of your reasoning I withdraw my request. TerriersFan (talk) 15:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

europedia.moussis.eu

This URL is currently blacklisted. There must be an error because Europedia is an authoritative site on European Union policies and legislation. It is visited by some 20,000 persons a month, most of whom come from the United States. Adding the Europedia URL to the external links of some Wikipedia articles could bring valuable additional information to Wikipedia readers. Therefore, I request that the above URL be unblocked. Thank you in advance.Noikossa (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • This is blocked at meta with no reason given in the log. To request removal from the blacklist, you have to place your request at m:talk:Spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/96216/ETC/RG58CU.html

Please whitelist http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/96216/ETC/RG58CU.html. Data used in primary line constants. It would be nice if the data were referenced to the datasheet it came from. SpinningSpark 14:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I am inclined to grant this request and will do so in a few days unless someone provides a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Note I have also made a request at Meta for the site to be unblocked. I am still none the wiser on why it is blacklisted. SpinningSpark 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I am going to delay this request until the meta request is processed; it would seem pointless to whitelist it as things stand. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Please withdraw request. The evidence at Meta is enough to convince me that this site is not worth the trouble.SpinningSpark

17:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

      • OK,  Not done. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

indianetzone.com/32/n_n_pillai_indian_theatre_personality.htm

I do not know why this site was blacklisted. Can't see much of spam here. Anyway, if that specific link is unblocked an external link from the article N. N. Pillai may be useful. Salih (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Details of why this was blacklisted are here. That site doesn't appear to be a reliable source, though; can you please explain how it qualifies? Stifle (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea about the reliablity of indianetzone.com as a site. I just saw a write-up about N. N. Pillai on the site. The content of the write-up seems to be accurate. No need to unblock if the site is not reliable. Salih (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The link seems to be a copyvio of "The Oxford companion to Indian theatre", page 354, I get almost exact matches [5][6][7].
And I noticed another possible copyvio, part of their page about Ismat Chughtai http://www.indianetzone.com/2/bollywood_writers.htm seems to be copied from the summary of a 2004 lecture [8]
According to the report in Wikiproject spam this is just one more of Jupiter Infomedia's spammed networks. None of their articles are signed or cite any source, I can easily find copyvios, and there is no guarantee of accuracy or indications of any editorial or quality control. indianetzone is not a reliable source, it's full of copyvios, and it should remain blacklisted. We should nuke all the remaining links to that website[9]. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation. I realize that the site should remain blocked. Salih (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This is considered Withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


ashtalakshmi.com

The site provides information about an Indian goddess Ashtalakshmi (Lakshmi) . I think that It is usefully information. It is good information website about lakshmi. It think It may necessary to wiki users for farther information. if it can whitelist, It may use to devotes and others.

Not sure why this is tripping the filter

I'm trying to add www.bpamp.co.cc/Download/Publication/Settlement_and_Argri_E.pdf to Ratanakiri (to replace a dead link) but it keeps getting blocked by the filter. ("The following link has triggered a protection filter: http:// www.bpamp.co.cc") I can't find the rule it's matching and somehow I doubt that a Cambodian NGO has been spending a lot of time spamming wikipedia... Can someone help out? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

oh damn it, evidently the organization hasn't actually uploaded the pdf they're linking to and it's going to some spammy 404.. never mind. :( Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
FYI, "co.cc" sites are blocked by the filter because that domain is a redirect service, and has extensive use for spammers. Specific sites can be whitelisted if they meet the requirements. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll consider this Withdrawn then. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.indiaacademic.com/

Indiaacademic.com is one of the leading educational websites of India</a>, trusted by millions of students and teachers across the country. The information about eligibility criteria for CAT can be useful for the related page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.140.240 (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

  • This is not blacklisted. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Article List of beer styles - bjcp links

Request allowing links to each page of the bjcp style guides for the List of beer styles article. Also links be allowed on Beer style and Beer Judge Certification Program. My understanding is that links have been disallowed across Wikipedia space because of excessive and inappropriate spamming by one or more individuals. That is fine, as such links are mostly (with some exceptions) discouraged by WikiProject Beer in specific beer style articles (such as Dortmunder Export), however WikiProject Beer has determined that such links are appropriate when talking directly about the BJCP. SilkTork *YES! 19:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We can't whitelist the whole domain, is/are there specific links that we can whitelist (just leave the http:// off, and you can save it here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Moot, links have been de-blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


I find very nice presentation about Krakow in the Internet: www.pol-and.eu/EN/Krakow.html, I tried to entered it as a link on article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak%C3%B3w but it was blacklisted. My proposal is to publish it in the link section. Regards Michal 80.238.121.172 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

  • You've requested that this site be blocked. Please clarify. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


http://ocpd.forumotion.net

I would like to use this link on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCPD.

I feel that for disorders, such as OCPD, that it is important to be able to find support groups with members that are going through the same symptoms. Support Groups alone can provide multitudes of information to those that are suffering with a disorder. I would like to see links to support groups for OCPD, and other disorders, on wikipedia because I feel that it would prove to be extremely useful. A list of such links would be a great addition to the "Self-help" section. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanaeP (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not blacklisted, as indicated by the fact that you could link it in the header.
As an aside, it's curious that an entirely new user finds their way here on a first edit. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems

The spam filter blocked a link I was adding in a discussion page. Fair enough, but in doing so destroyed an hours worth of edits, which I could not reload or go back to as they had "timed out". Bad show. Wiredrabbit (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC).

  • I agree with Wiredrabbit's comment above. Isn't there some way to accept Talk Page edits but just break the link? cmadler (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    Not at the moment. I agree that presenting the text submitted (same way as an edit conflict) would help, though. I'll see about raising a bugzilla. Most decent browsers will keep the text in the textarea as edited if you hit the back button, though. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
    Bugzilla:9416 deals with this. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/10&oldid=1168682963"