MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/03

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

Approved Requests[edit]

grangehotels.com[edit]

I understand this domain has been involved in some SEO spamming. However we have an legit article Grange City Hotel, covering a notable 5* london hotel, which is missing a link to the hotel's home page. So. Any possibility of whitelisting www DOT grangehotels.com/Hotels-London/Grange-City-Hotel/Grange-City-Hotel.aspx?INT=1 ...? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am minded to allow this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. I do seem to remember this coming up before, though... Stifle (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the article in question has existed only since 14 December 2009 ... not sure any request has been made whilst that article was extant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Stifle (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and NVC article (examiner.com)[edit]

Would like to cite this particular article - www.examiner.com/x-28587-SF-Buddhism-Examiner~y2010m2d3-Buddhism-and-Nonviolent-Communication-an-interview-with-Oren-Sofer - on Nonviolent Communication, about the connection between that and Buddhism. I get the objection to examiner.com in general, but this particular author has written a series of journalistic articles that would seem to qualify them as a reliable source: www.examiner.com/x-28587-SF-Buddhism-Examiner --John_Abbe (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --John_Abbe (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denied Requests[edit]

Real's FreedomOfMusicChoice petition[edit]

This is the petition to Apple from Real that set up a few years ago, and would be worthwhile linking to from the relevant section in the RealNetworks article.

  • www.petitiononline.com/r4apple/petition.html

EAi (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

amberlamps.co.cc[edit]

This is the Unofficial Fan Site for Amber Lamps and it a valid link (not a spam site) that would be quite useful as an external link in the article about the meme AC Transit Bus fight. The site contains innocuous links to youtube videos and to an internal directory of hosted still photos at amberlamps.co.cc/pics.html --

If for some reason you believe that the entire site cannot be whitelisted, please at least white-list the gallery of stills. Thanks for your consideration.

catherine yronwode, long-time editor, not affiliated with the site, just trying to help improve the article on the meme. Catherineyronwode (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just upload copies of the pictures to Wikipedia? If they really benefit the article, they should fit under the "fair use" guideline. Other than that, there is no real need to link to the site. --Ckatzchatspy 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL links to avoid includes fansites. This is not even an official fansite. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Stifle (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

associatedcontent.com[edit]

I would like to request this link -- article/1249339/anatidaephobia_the_fear_that_you_are.html (subpage of AssociatedContent) -- for referencing in the article Anatidaephobia.

--Russell777Evil League of Ducks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.67.62 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.associatedcontent.com on Talk:Samuel B. Kent (for talk page only)[edit]

  • Site: www.associatedcontent.com/article/41959/the_war_on_christians_in_american_public.html?cat=9
  • Page: Talk:Samuel B. Kent

See Talk:Samuel B. Kent#Bluster about jail time for graduating high school seniors who mentioned Jesus. Requesting that this link be allowed on this talk page (not in article). Preventing use of the link in the talk page impairs legitimate discussion of good-faith attempt to find a WP:RS discussing an allegation from the blacklisted site. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a talk page, you should just post the link as above (not a clickable link). There is no need for a whitelist entry for a talk page when anyone can copy the URL into their browser. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that same thought occurred to me seconds after I clicked on "Save Page," and I went ahead and did that. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Stifle (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AssociatedContent.com Specific Article: Skittles Gone Vegetarian[edit]

(associatedcontent.com/article/2568263/skittles_gone_vegetarian_what_was_wrong.html?cat=5) This article contains relevant information for the Skittles (Confectionary) page, all of it located in one area for more concise citation within Wikipedia. Information presented within the article is cited, so it is clear that it is reliable. I've looked through other portions of the website and seen that some articles are not cited properly or appear to have unreliable information. However, because all articles are written and uploaded independently, it seems that these articles should be allowed (or not) on a case-by-case basis. Note that relevant information includes: background on ingredients that were not suitable for vegetarians, which Skittles products are now vegetarian, and when consumers first began to notice the changing ingredients in these products (currently showing a "when?" citation note on the Skittles Wikipedia page).

Thank you for your consideration of this webpage, --Hosenkun (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libro d'Oro di Malta[edit]

I would request this website(maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/lebastardedemezieres.html)to be White listed as it holds some important genealogical information regarding French and English royalty. Here is a list of articles that could benefit from it

  • Henri de Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier : in this article it would make to us known the pedigree of his mother, Renee of Anjou, who according to the website was a direct male line (albeit illegitimate) descendant of John II of Naples.
  • Charles, Count of Maine : This article does not list any illegitimate children, therefore a link could be forged between this article and others, for example the previous one, by naming Charles's illegitimate offspring, and his subsequent descendants form them.
  • Marie de Bourbon, Duchess of Montpensier : This article also does not list any illegitimate children, yet according to the site, Marie had several illegitimate children with a certain Leonor de Orleans, Comte de St Paul, Duc de Fronjac. This would imply she has descendants till today, which was earlier unknown as her only legitimate daughter, La Grande Mademoiselle, died without any issue. Furthermore, her article can be linked to the articles of the Duke of Lennox, the illegitimate son of Charles II of England, as follows...
    • According to the site, Marie's illegitimate granddaughter, Jeanne de Meziere, was a mistress of Louis Joseph de Bourbon, duc de Vendome. The offspring of this liasion, Jacqueline de Mezieres, was mistress to Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond. In turn, their daughter Renée Lennox was mistress of her cousin Charles Beauclerk, 2nd Duke of St Albans and, not surprisingly, in turn, their offspring, Diane Beauclerk-Lennox, became the mistress of a Maltese Baron Alessandro Mompalalao Cuzkeri. Diane has surviving descendants today, but they are generally commoners. Also, through this long chain of illegitimate relationships one can highlight the sexual tendencies of the French Nobility, or in other words, the Ancien Regime....HOwever, that is not very important. What is important is the number of articles that will benefit from this information...Therefore i request to please white list this site, as it is a valuable piece of information for wikipedia...

Thanking You, Nirvaan, Talk Page, Nghosh 20:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Where is the evidence that this is a reliable source, please? Also, I can't find the blacklist discussion. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the link ([1]). Its clearly says NO ENTRIES for MaltaGenealogy.com. Nirvaan, Talk Page, Nghosh 09:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still awaiting evidence that this is a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done due to failure to cooperate with the process and provide required information. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...ttp://uttardayee.freewebspace.com/Accountable_Asia/06%20-%20Accounting%20History,%20Part-1.pdf[edit]

I am in a middle of a discussion about a topic and would like to be able to use this pdf file as a matherial for the discussion. I don't know about the rest of the site, but this pdf is all I need from itHammer of Habsburg (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in a discussion, you can paste the url like you have done in the title of this post (as opposed to having a live link). MER-C 02:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done, unnecessary. Just use the part after http: in the discussion. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Observer review page[edit]

I am creating a series of articles for the albums by Dope Stars Inc.. Given the nationality of the band, there are few english reviews for their albums, namely the 10,000 Watts of Artificial Pleasures EP. I am writing the article HERE and it would not let me use the Metal observer review ( www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=5782 ) which would greatly benefit all readers and expand the article. This is a review, so opinion is what is what is being sourced, and therefore it is a reliable source because the information cannot be incorrect or disputable. GroundZ3R0 002 01:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aceshowbiz.com[edit]

Irequest this site to be unblocked as it conatains some useful and trusted information regarding the details of celebrities like biography, awards etc and would act as an useful reference

Thanking You, KingdomHearts25

no Declined. No proper rationale given, past abuse and issues of reliability would require a compelling case for removal from blacklisted status. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ashtalakshmi.com[edit]

This site is a good information about hindhu goddess of lakshmi, please check site once approve to purmission to usefull information—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.25.129 (talk • contribs)

 Not done. This request may be considered when a trusted, high-volume editor requests the link for use in a specific article. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

medievalhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/hospitality_in_the_medieval_monastery[edit]

Could you please whitelist medievalhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/hospitality_in_the_medieval_monastery It would benefit the article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_monasticism because it would allow me to make an external link footnote for a paragraph I wrote. If I could make an external link, it would allow the article to be more reliable. Also, I will not put the paragraph I wrote on Wikipedia without a footnote, and therefore the information that would benefit the article would not be there. Oxfordmom (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined, this is not obviously a reliable source and we have had a lot of problems with this site in the past. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you looking at my request, so thank you! Oxfordmom (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modelinia[edit]

I would like to add this link: www.modelinia.com/videos/she--8217-s-with-the-band--damaris-lewis-gets-personal-with-nick-jonas/479 to Damaris Lewis's Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damaris_Lewis. Wikipedia will benefit from this site and this site being whitelisted because Modelinia is a recognized go-to source for access to and factual information on the model community. We have direct, credible, real relationships with the models featured on our site as well as their agents and representation. We do not publish any photos or content without signed release forms and all other requisite permissions.

I would also like to add this link: www.modelinia.com/models/damaris-lewis/182 to Damaris Lewis's page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damaris_Lewis because it provides her date of birth, which Wikipedia does not currently list. Therefore, permitting this page on Modelinia to serve as a source for this basic biographical information.

I would also like to add this link: www.modelinia.com/models/brooklyn-decker/93 to Brooklyn Decker's page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Decker because the basic information such as her height and her date of birth are incorrect on her Wikipedia page.

I would also like to add this link: www.modelinia.com/blog/mayor-bloomberg-hearts-fashion-week-and-modelinia/17998 to Veronica Webb's page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_Webb because it is important up-to-date information on how Veronica has been continuing her career as a TV host beyond Tim Gunn's Guide to Style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.245.138.226 (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Ewestlake (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Declined. We typically do not whitelist sites at the request of the site owners and the use case you present is skirting the borders of our policy forbidding original research. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

petitions.number10.gov.uk[edit]

There's a blacklist entry for /\bpetitions?\b/, which seems rather overzealous. It catches the above, which is the official site for online petitions to the UK Prime Minister. The particular thing I would like to be able to link is search.petitions.number10.gov.uk/kbroker/number10/petitions/search.lsim?ha=1159&qt=dihydrogen (to provide a reference for a claim made at Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax).

  • If the reason for the very broad blacklisting is that many sites with "petition" in their names are spammy or unreliable or otherwise unlikely to be usable as sources or appropriate for linking, then I think *.petitions.number10.gov.uk should be whitelisted.
  • If the reason for the very broad blacklisting is concern that links from WP to online petition sites are themselves likely to be a form of abuse (e.g., people agitating for signatures for their pet causes) then I think search.petitions.number10.gov.uk should be whitelisted.
  • If the reason is something else I haven't thought of that makes almost all links to sites with "petition" in their names a Bad Thing, then I request that whitelisting the specific link above be considered.
  • If the reason is something that makes it bad to have the URL included on the Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax page even without being a link, I will be glad to remove it again. (At present I've added a <ref> for it that includes the URL without the leading http://.)

Wikipedia will gain from the whitelisting because the fact that a petition has been made, or that it has received a very large number of signatures, or that it has been successful, can easily be worthy of mention in WP. The specific example above is pretty borderline, but consider e.g. the petition mentioned under "Rehabilitation" on the Alan Turing page; it would be good to be able to link directly to the petition there, as well as to articles about the petition. Thanks. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • We very much intend to block all petition sites, because Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to call attention to your cause. If it's your intention to refer to the amount of support some petition has received, you should cite a secondary source that says so. The petition site is not a reliable source for anything. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, it's not my cause; I neither created nor (IIRC) signed any of the petitions mentioned above. (It's possible that I signed the Turing one; I forget. In the present instance my intention was simply to provide a citation for a claim that was already in the article and that had a citation-needed tag on it.) And, also for the avoidance of doubt, neither in the case that actually prompted this request nor the hypothetical one I mentioned does this have anything to do with calling attention to any cause; the DHMO petitions are obvious jokes and that's their point, and the Turing one was closed long ago.

Anyway: the petition site, at least in this case, most certainly *is* a reliable source for (1) the existence of any given petition on it, (2) the support it has received, and (3) the official response, if any, from the UK government. Of course it isn't a reliable source for any claim made in any petition, but I wasn't suggesting that it is. And of course it's a primary source for (1-3) above, and must therefore be used with care; but, to take as an example the DHMO-hoax page I mentioned above, the only claim being made there is that several petitions have been submitted and rejected as not serious, which is (to quote WP:OR) a "descriptive statement[] that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge".

It seems to me that the petition-searching facility at search.petitions.number10.gov.uk is scarcely more soapbox-enabling than the internet-searching facility at www.google.com, which is not blacklisted. (Indeed, the documented purpose of the blacklist is "a last resort for spam which spreads across multiple projects" and it seems improbable to me that a blanket ban on sites with "petition" or "petitions" in their name can be necessary for that purpose; but that's a digression and it is not my purpose to divert this into a discussion of whether the blanket entry is a mistake. My point is only: Here is what seems like an obviously legitimate purpose for linking to this site.) Gareth McCaughan (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many petition sites have been problematic (petitiononline.com the big example, but there are many more), most of them are sites where one can start without any background a 'free' petition, and abuse of those was significant.
That being said, I would be inclined to say that petitions.number10.gov.uk could be different in that regard. You need to be a British citizen to start a petition, contact details are checked, etc. etc. I don't think it will be possible to 'just create a random petition here'. I second whitelisting the whole domain (though we may consider to add it to XLinkBot at the same time just to not have it abused, and to get a bit of an idea of the if and how it is abused). Any second opinions? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose whitelisting the domain at this time. At first glance, the URL suggested it might be reserved for official matters. If, however, it is for the general public, it would open us up to problematic abuse (even if petitions are vetted there). We can alway whitelist specific notable pages if needed. As for the link in the dihydrogen article, is that bit of trivia even notable? All it really proves is that the office didn't fall for the joke, which doesn't seem terribly notable. --Ckatzchatspy 09:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I (the person who made this request) am not 100% convinced that the DHMO petition thing is notable either; I was just doing some citation cleanup. But I think I'd say: given that we have an article about DHMO at all, and given that the purpose of the DHMO hoax is as a sort of test/demonstration of a certain kind of scientific illiteracy, facts about notable entities that have demonstrated either that sort of illiteracy or its opposite when faced with the hoax are relevant there. But no, the article would hardly be ruined if that claim were simply removed. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk: you don't need to be a British citizen, you just need to say you're a British citizen. I'm not totally opposed to the concept of whitelisting this one, but it's still a primary source. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not here to garner support for (always and necessarily) partisan petitions. Nor are these petitions usable as sources. We can report on what third parties say about them, and that is enough. As tot he specific case, the Number 10 petition site was one of the sites that caused the blacklisting in the first place, and sourcing commentary of the petition to the petition site itself is WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, again: (1) I haven't the least interest in using WP to garner support for any petition; all the petitions I mentioned above have already closed. Suggesting that links to this site be permitted is not, in any way, the same thing as saying that WP is here to garner support for petitions. (2) The specific instance that prompted the request *is* reporting on a "third party"'s comments, namely the (admittedly unsurprising) official response from the British government to a bunch of hoax petitions. (3) Linking to the No10 petition site to support a statement that (a) several silly hoax petitions of a certain kind have been submitted to it, and (b) they have all been rejected as not serious, is not in any useful sense "original research"; in particular, it does not match the description of "original research" at the start of WP:OR, and constitutes appropriate use of primary sources as prescribed on that page. Having said all that, I'll repeat something else I already said: I can't get terribly excited about whether the Dihydrogen monoxide page is or isn't allowed to source its claim about those petitions, nor about whether it's allowed to make that claim at all. It's obviously of zero importance, near enough. And arguing about this is obviously a waste of everyone's time. I therefore withdraw this request because I don't wish to spend any more time arguing about something I care so little about. But I'm troubled by the bogosity of some of the counterarguments that have been made here. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Declined since the requesting rationale basically reiterates the kind of uses that led to the original blacklisting, with the No. 10 petition site being one of if not the most prominent example cited in that discussion. As was noted then, genuinely significant and notable petitions can be discussed by reference to reliable independent sources, anything cited directly to the site risks WP:OR and allowing links is an open invitation to a resumption of the long-term problem of canvassing. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is unfortunate that Gareth McCaughan withdrew their request because it makes it sound like the arguments against whitelisting this domain are legitimate. Although I do understand why they chose to do so. The reason for this citation is to prove that the hoax petition existed and what better source to use than the actual petition url itself. As much as blacklisting is very useful to cut out spam and canvassing that is not the purpose of this citation and to deny use of the url is in this instance denying wikipedia from using a legitimate source. Since everything on wikipedia must be cited this overzealous blacklisting entry makes editors job very difficult. The url should be allowed to be cited. It is not canvassing. It is not spam. It is a citation and I am disappointed that users here have the "power" to decline legitimate requests to allow specific citations. Jdrewitt (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

examiner.com[edit]


I'd like to use this examiner article www.examiner.com/x-13886-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m1d31-New-paper-from-the-Science-and-Public-Policy-Institute-destroys-global-warming-claims-by-CRU to help establish the notability of the argument used.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand this. You use 'original research' without editorial overview to establish notability of an argument? --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I've used news articles, the biggest blog on the internet (of the subject), a scientist, a tv documentary and a few other things to establish the notability of the argument, but the editor in question is making it clear that he doesn't want it in. I added 4 more sources to show him and was surprised when the examiner was blacklisted.TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm .. now saying nothing about the specific requests, but if a real hoax is widely covered on blogs, unreliable 'news' sites then that does not make it true. It is not 'I have 50 blog posts (on different blogs), so it is worth mentioning'. This defies our reliable sources guideline, I think, unless there is real merit to include it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dirk.  Not done Stifle (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thesportsinterview.com[edit]

I was trying to make the following change on the talk page for Omar Benson Miller because Wiki has published the error, removed the error, but alas, also released the error into the internet, so it is highly likely to reappear on the Wiki page -- I'd like to forestall that. In the link, OBM says himself that Wikipedia removed it but that it keeps coming round again due to all the sites which picked up Wikipedia's original error. I don't know what the site did to get blacklisted; it looks pretty harmless to me.

==No relation to Forest Whittaker==
At one point, Wikipedia said he was Whittaker's nephew, but OBM refutes the story himself [http://www.thesportsinterview.com/omarb.html here].

—LisaSmall T/C 01:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site was blocked due to massive spamming, IIRC. As an aside, we don't normally do those sort of "retractions", so the edit isn't really needed. --Ckatzchatspy 02:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend whitelisting. The decision of whether or not to use this source should be made at the article, and the purpose given here is for Talk page usage, convenience and general editor information so that errors don't creep into the article. Reason for blacklisting is not relevant to a whitelist request, which appears to have been made in good faith by an established editor and should be granted. --Abd (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined the context being a talk page. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dreammachineonline.freeforums.org/index.php[edit]

the current link on wikipedia points at a now dead page (i have since deleted the 'dead'link) for use on the page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Machine_(band)

dreammachineonline.freeforums.org/index.php is the correct address for the official band forum of which i am the admin/owner the original link to the original forum was allowed. the original forum is no longer in existence and has thus been replaced with the above forum. this can be verified by following the link to the forum from the bands official webpage link Sideards (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • We don't normally link to forums; see WP:RS. What makes this one worthy of an exception? Stifle (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page used to link to the bands forum but the forum address has changed, I assume the original link (which I have edited out already) was allowed as an exception? the band themselves are frequent posters on this forum and often news of the band is heard there first. Sideards (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend whitelisting Sideards registered the account to make this request, and discloses COI. The link in question was an external link, WP:RS does not apply, the issue is whether or not this is an appropriate and useful link for readers of the article, and that decision should be made at the article. Sideards is cautioned that he or she should not make the decision to insert the link, because of the conflict of interest, but should ask at the article Talk page and allow a neutral editor to do it, if that's decided. Sideards, I apologize for how long this has taken. I'm volunteering here to clean up the backlog, I'm just making recommendations, but I hope they will be acted upon promptly (accepted or rejected.)--Abd (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined forums are generally to be avoided. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lulu.com/content/paperback-book/demon-candy-parallel/7624834[edit]

I want to reference this for the article for the webcomic Demon Candy: Parallel as this is the publisher of the print edition of the comic. As there are only a few reliable sources out there for this comic, I believe that this would be useful. ISD (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could I request that a decision about this link be made very soon. The article is due to appear on DYK? at midnight GMT on the 29th, and if this source is useable it will help make the article become less likely to be deleted. The article on has one secondry source so far, so this will help. ISD (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

recommend no action. The link does not show the book in question. It may or may not have been appropriate. That this request got no prompt response shows why I'm volunteering to help clean up the backlog and maintain this page. To work, whitelist requests must be promptly answered. I'll be seeking additional help as well, I'd like to see a one-day response be normal. My apologies to ISD, but, after all, the link was transient, anyway.... --Abd (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Declined not really a valuable encyclopaedic addition. Guy (Help!) 10:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Mappery[edit]

For Fort Teran. What exactly is the problem with this link: http:// mappery.com / map-of / 1849-Texas-Historical-Map? It works and is helpful for locating site. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See

The link was spammed, and the editor apparently was not willing to stop and started vandalising by removing other external links. Not sure if the 'spamming' will stop, though I do see that the link can be of interest. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend whitelisting page. Recommend considering delisting and monitoring for spam. Note that a site like this might have hundreds or thousands of legitimate links, and an enthusiastic editor might well start to add a lot, not to mention someone COI. Because there may be complex issues at each usage, such as copyright, it's possible that blacklisting might be needed to require special attention for each page through the whitelist. On the other hand, the map in question is sourced at mappery.com at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/badeker-tx-1849.jpg, it's much slower to load, but may be higher resolution. I do not know the situation with other maps at mappery.com, nor their handling of copyright for more modern maps. --Abd (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Declined, decorative usage is not sufficient given past spamming issues. Guy (Help!) 10:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VBS.tv[edit]

VBS.tv seems to be a legitimate site of Vice Magazine's video broadcast.

I was trying to add http:// www. vbs. tv/ watch/ the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-1-of-8 (The Vice Guide to Liberia) to Liberia article and got spam filter notice.

Please whitelist http:// www. vbs. tv/ or explain why it is blacklisted, because I could find anything clear and definitive in the archives.

Thank you. - Zealander (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vbs.tv is blacklisted because of spamming issues; see here and here. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend whitelisting. Zealander is not an SPA, has a few hundred article space edits. The existence of spamming should be irrelevant to specific whitelist requests. The specific page requested seems broken. However, www.vbs.tv/watch/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-trailer is live and will link to the other pages. Note that this recommendation does not at all support that the link should be allowed as reliable source, though it is possible to assert VBS.tv as such. It may be appropriate as an external link, and that depends on article consensus. Zealander should actively seek the approval of other editors before inserting the link to the article. --Abd (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Someone should, in the instructions for this page, tell editors that just entering a URL without the http:// prefix works! -- and then it can just be pasted into a browser.[reply]

no Declined domain wide whitelist due to spamming, specific requests should be made for specific URLs to support encyclopaedic comment. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


lulu.com/content/e-book/the-arrival-of-the-fittest-how-the-great-become-great/8091506[edit]

hello

i'm writing in retation to an article i'm about to submit to request that you whitelist a specific Url related to Lulu.com (a site which understandably re span mail you have blacklisted).


the article is:

User:AgRince/Social Science Research on Greatness


the Url i'm asking you to whitelist (minus: http://www.) is: 

lulu.com/content/e-book/the-arrival-of-the-fittest-how-the-great-become-great/8091506


My reasons for this request are:


  • the article re greatness i am submitting covers the major books written on the topic over the last 150 years or so.
  • there is nothing in Wiki re this topic at present, ie social science research on greatness
  • the Url i want to have whitelisted is not the Lulu.com site Url. It is simply one particular Url which provides reference information for one of the seven major books on greatness discussed in the article. Without this specific Url the reference list remains incomplete
  • the article is related to many other topics covered in Wiki, eg excellent article on Nobel Prize which you have listed in your index of featured/good articles; articles related to any of a multitude of 'greats' such as Einstein, Mozart, Hitchcock, etc etc who are all discussed in both the article re greatness, and more particularly in considerable detail with relation to how each became a 'great' in the book whose Url i am requesting that you whitelist.
  • the only place the Url will appear is at the very end of the article in the reference list, indicating that the book is published online as ebook at that Url


Many thanks in advance for your consideration.


AgRince (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This specific url does not work for me. Did you mean the book: "The Arrival of The Fittest: How The Great Become Great" by Bill Dorris (2002, 2004)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/good_religion_Institutionalized.htm[edit]

PLEASE NOTE: Earlier this month, I submitted a request to remove a blacklisted link on the talk page for Spam-blacklist (it is now archived several days back here) and was redirected by an editor to this page.

I think that at least my particular link (perhaps not the whole website) should be whitelisted because I can't find another reliable source to back up changes I need to make to the Zoroastrianism article, or other Zoroastrian or related articles if it's deemed necessary.

I am not sure why the cais-soas.com website is blacklisted. I haven't seen any copyright violations, but I do see sources listed on the website's Zoroaster article that I want to use.

The website minus http://www. is: 

cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/good_religion_Institutionalized.htm

The reasons I need this link whitelisted and why the link is needed:

  • The Zoroastrianism article contains INCORRECT terminology (with no source). Zoroaster is the Greek form of the Avestan term Zarathustra, which was shortened to Zartosht in Persian and Zarathusht/Zarthusht in Gujarati. The article currently has the Zarathusth/Zarthusht as the Persian name and Zartosht as the Gujarati one for the Iranian/Persian prophet.
  • I am Persian and my ancestry is Zoroastrian, so I KNOW this to be false and can attest to the correct usage. However, even though it is FACT and common knowledge, the reference would stop any erroneous arguments on this website. There is currently NO source on that article page for names currently used. I'd rather have some source to back it up. And a researched article written by a university professor is a good one.
  • The website references historical sources.
  • Dr. Jafarey is a university professor who founded CAIS (Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies) with another professor at the University of London.
  • A source like this one is needed to verify the correction I want to add, and also lists a good amount of scholarly sources for it's article.
  • This is the best and most accessible source I've found to reference the edits I want to make.
  • A whitelisting of the whole website isn't necessary; this ONE particular link is the only one I currently need to back up my edits.

Thank you for the consideration. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site is blacklisted as it is known to carry copyrighted material in violation of the owner's copyright. Can you please explain how this page is not such a violation? Stifle (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

post.ly on Posterous[edit]

http://post.ly is operated by Posterous and therefore relevant to and is indeed already mentioned on their article. Requesting that the website's homepage be whitelisted for the Posterous article; no reason to make people jump through the copy-paste-into-the-address-bar hoop. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the link, the statement 'Posterous hosts a web-shortening service' is enough. no Declined --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore Real Estate Blog, activerain.com/blogsview/1173533/no-man-s-land-wilmette-on-the-lake[edit]

Request whitelisting this commercial blog page (not entire activerain.domain which is a large real estate site that has been blacklisted) because author Goss presents balance despite apparent role as real estate agent; information on page is useful to page No Man's Land, Illinois. Ouilmette (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)Ouilmette[reply]

no Declined After reviewing the content, I'd say it's questionable as a WP:Reliable source and is mostly oriented towards advertising (talking about recent sales, recent market conditions, etc. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, Invalid, Malformed or Otherwise Past Relevance[edit]

Request to Whitelist Single Article on Suite 101.com[edit]

The article Riggins, Linda N., The Telescopes Galileo Made: How He Built Them An Original and Replicas Now Touring Museumsat astronomyhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_telescopes_galileo_made can only be found online at sites related to suite101.com, all of which are blacklisted. This particular article, however, appears sound and includes a list of credible sources. The article is the best clear online source for the proposition that Galileo's instrument maker Marc'Antonio Mazzoleni assisted Galileo with the production of Galileo's telescopes, as Mazzoleni clearly did with other instruments invented by Galileo. See further discussion in the DYK nomination for the Mazzoleni article: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_February_13 --JohnPomeranz (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, heck. New to this whole whitelist-blacklist thing, I have only now figured out that I should have searched the past discussions about Suite101.com. Who knew there had been so much furor? I bow to past consensus and withdraw this request. (Although the article in question still looks well-sourced to me. I wish it could have been found elsewhere.)
I also wish that there were more admins working this page. It's been frustrating waiting for a response to my request, although I know we're all volunteers here, so I shouldn't gripe.--JohnPomeranz (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.hebrewonline.com/Newsletters/family_day_2009.asp[edit]

For Mother's_Day#Israel, to source the origin and name of the holiday in Israel. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend whitelisting. Source may not be the best, but that is a decision which should be made at the article; requestor is an experienced editor in good standing and should be granted the courtesy of a whitelisting. Trying to find blacklist history, page is blacklisted at meta, and found the "discussion" at [2]. I see no reason to deny individual whitelist requests from established editors. --Abd (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Similar info can be found at better sources, including JWeekly and Israel National News. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination OK, I will use those sources instead. Thanks for finding them. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/03&oldid=1087726379"