Wikipedia

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/10

< MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist | Archives
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Ohnoitsjamie in topic Denied requests


Archives (current)→

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    The Spam-whitelist page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist and the local spam-blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (web pages to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to reblock), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

    Please enter your requests at the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and not at the very bottom of the page. Sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

    Also in your request, please include the following:

    1. The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
    2. The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
    3. An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
    4. If the site you're requesting is listed at /Common requests, please include confirmation that you have read the reason why requests regarding the site are commonly denied and that you still desire to proceed with your request

    Important: You must provide a full link to the specific web page you want to be whitelisted (leave out the http:// from the front; otherwise you will not be able to save your edit to this page). Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar with nothing after the / character) are likely to be denied. If you wish to have a site fully unblocked please visit the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

    Note: Do not request links to be whitelisted where you can reasonably suspect that the material you want to link to is in violation of copyright (see WP:LINKVIO). Such requests will likely be summarily rejected.

    There is no automated notification system in place for the results of requests, and you will not be notified when your request has a response. You should therefore add this page to your personal watch list, to your notifications through the subscribe feature, or check back here every few days to see if there is any progress on it; in particular, you should check whether administrators have raised any additional queries or expressed any concerns about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in the request being denied.

    Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|1108926186#section_name}}

    Note that requests from new or unregistered users are not usually considered.

    Admins: Use seth's tool to search the spamlists.

    Indicators
    Request completed:
     Done {{Done}}
     Stale {{StaleIP}}
     Request withdrawn {{withdrawn}}
    Request declined:
    no Declined {{Declined}}
     Not done {{Notdone}}
    Information:
     Additional information needed {{MoreInfo}}
    information Note: {{TakeNote}}


    Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)


    Approved requests

    Latest comment: 13 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion

    www.helium.com/users/490158

    helium.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    • I would like to request the whitelisting of www.helium.com/users/490158 for the Charles A. Ray article. While most helium.com pages are being used for self-published authors and are rightfully blacklisted, this particular helium.com page belongs to a U.S. Ambassador and is helpful for establishing a few biographical details that are left out of his official government biography. OCNative (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I've looked at the WP article, helium.com, and the specific page of helium.com, and second OCNative's request. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    •   Approved Hoary (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

    www.vbs.tv/en-gb/watch/picture-perfect--2/picture-perfect-rob-hornstra

    vbs.tv: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    I had not heard of the vbs.tv website/enterprise until an hour or so ago and know no more about it than what is written in the article about it or is visible on the single page there that's of interest to me. I presume that vbs.tv (in general) was blacklisted here for a good reason and am not challenging this. However, I want to add the following

    * "[http://www.vbs.tv/en-gb/watch/picture-perfect--2/picture-perfect-rob-hornstra Picture Perfect: Rob Hornstra]". Sixteen-minute [[VBS.tv]] video of Hornstra talking about his work and photographing in Sochi.

    to the list of external links at the foot of Rob Hornstra. The video is well made and (at least for readers interested in documentary photography) unusually interesting. The embedded video certainly does not spam anything and the page in which it is embedded does not noticeably spam anything either. Since I am not using Windows I have no Windows "virus protection" software running and do not know if the page has any malware payload, but I cannot think of any other possible drawback to the link.

    Please click on this particular vbs.tv link and view the result with an open mind.

    Again, while this particular video is worthwhile, I am (at this point) indifferent about the acceptability of the vbs.tv website. I'm therefore open to the idea of adding a link to the same video as embedded in some other site, one to which Wikipedia has no objection (and about which there are no copyright questions). Suggestions are welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

    PS Further reading (which I should have done in the first place, of course) reveals that vbs.tv is blacklisted because WP has been spammed with links to it. Because (i) I am requesting the addition of a single link to a single article, and (ii) I have made other edits to the same page, this shouldn't be an issue here. I note that A. B. wrote here (in 2008) that If an established, high volume editor requests whitelisting of a specific page that can serve as a reliable source for use in a citation, we can reconsider. "If" needn't imply "IFF", but all the same: (i) I am "established", and (ii) my "volume" is high; but (iii) I do not want to source anything to this video, because as a reader I am irritated to find an interesting assertion "sourced" to a video, which may or may not play on the computer I happen to be using, and which anyway won't have a text search facility. If you like, I could extend Since graduation Hornstra has combined editorial work for newspapers and magazines with more personal, longer-term documentary work in the Netherlands, Iceland, and the former Soviet Union by saying something about how he hopes to spend 10 to 15 years on Russia and thereafter to move elsewhere, and source the addition to the video; or I could add that the lengthy project about Sochi was Van Bruggen's idea rather than his own; or that he uses a medium-format camera (a Mamiya 7, surely); or that the current subproject within the Sochi project is on amateur lounge singers. Would this help? -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC) ... Somewhat altered Hoary (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

    PPS Yes, I am an admin; and I read at the top Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist (and below You're a sysop, you don't need to ask). However, I'm very wary of using my superpowers to advance my priorities in editing, plus I've previously got in a tangle here, and although that ended up pretty well for all concerned, I'm probably not the most popular admin hereabouts. And so I claim no admin-specific privilege. Please deal with my request on its merits. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

      Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    Oh, thank you very much! -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

    norm.org

    norm.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com I tried to add an external link to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Safran%27s_Race_Relations - which refers to the organisation, but it was flagged as a blacklisted site. This article also refers to NORM and could benefit from a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

    I'm not sure why this site is blacklisted? It seems relevant to anyone wondering about this practice. The organisation is mentioned and described, but links to its official site are not allowed. NORM-UK actually has its own wikipedia page, but the original NORM is banned from Wikipedia? Omgplz (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

    • No log entry associated with the blacklisting, therefore there is a presumption in favour of removal. One week will be allowed for objections. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll try and have a look at this later, when I have access to COIBot. Just as a note, it looks like Foreskin restoration is already linking to the homepage of this organisation, and you mention as well 'which refers to the organisation'. Per WP:EL, these links are not direct on the 2 pages where you mention it. Where mentioned, the mention should be a wikilink to the subject page (even if it does not exist), we do not externally link for all organisations etc. which are mentioned on a page. I agree, that on the page on the subject (when it exists) a link to a homepage should be allowed. I'll look further later (but nothing against removal). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
      • Could not really find anything, no objection. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    •   Removed Stifle (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

    www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/a-recession-indicator-thats-hard-to-miss

    I have no idea how this site got blacklisted, it even has it's own article: MoneyWeek that includes an external link to the site. It seems to be a legitimate source of news. I need it for Kingdom Tower (Jeddah). Thanks. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

    It looks like it was part of a spam campaign, many domains and so on (if you follow the link 'tracked' in the template, you will be pointed to some discussions and users). I'll whitelist this one.   Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you, I'm sure some of that site is spam and should be blocked but that link leads to a legitimate article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

    Vietvisiontravel.com

    Thanks for taking a look at this .. Sharktopus talk 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

    • I'm not whitelisting the entire domain, because of spamming, but if you tell us what one page you are wanting to link I'll consider that. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks so much -- just this one page would be all I want: www.vietvisiontravel.com/tour/pgid/44/aid/5911 Sharktopus talk 23:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

    www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/twin-galaxies-and-the-golden-domes

    A portion of this video includes footage of a building I am writing about. (Currently at User:Will Beback/Sandbox 2, soon to be at Golden Domes.) While there is other video of it around, this is the only website which hosts a video which hasn't been created by others (i.e. copyvios). It's my understanding that the site has been blacklisted because of repeated spam efforts, and obviously this is not part of that. It would not be a used as a source, but as a useful external link.   Will Beback  talk  08:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

      Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  08:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


    Denied requests

    Latest comment: 13 years ago29 comments12 people in discussion

    hubpages.com/hub/Tigers-in-Texas

    Mark Hurd (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

    www.lulu.com/product/file-download/retreat-from-reality/13838213

    www.examiner.com/events-in-los-angeles/a-rae-of-sunshine-patricia-rae-beams-onto-the-big-screen-our-hearts

    Based in Los Angeles, Mona Elyafi has been writing entertainment news and personality profiles since 1992. She currently serves as the LA correspondent for Diva Fashion Magazine reporting on the latest Hollywood trends and covering celebrity interviews (Kim Kardashian, Katy Perry and Kimora Lee Simmons). Her articles have also appeared in The Washington Square News, Studio City Magazine & Salt Lake City Tribune. Elyafi holds a Master of Arts in journalism from New York University.
    The author does not appear to be a user who one day just logged onto The Examiner and made the article, and seems to have made the article with a reasonable level of professionalism. Her credentials as an entertainment journalist also seem to be backed up here and here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, the author seems professional, and the simple reason for this is that she is a professional publicist. Her articles may indeed appear in the infotainment sources that she names, but Google News hasn't heard of her. As for the two sources you give for her "credentials as an entertainment journalist", one is mere self-promotion and the other is for her credentials as a publicist, not a journalist. I realize that in the netherworld of C-list celebrity much of "journalism" is mere recycled PR puff; but even if she did have some PR-unrelated journalism credential, her blazingly obvious PR motivation would render her journalism unusable for encyclopedic purposes. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

      Not done The writer is not a journalist but a generator of PR. -- Hoary (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

    smilelist.xf.cz

    Niusereset (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

    Already answered on frwiki. Regards — Arkanosis ✉ 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    The link in the header is different to the linksummary provided. Please can you clarify? Stifle (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
      Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    My mistake... I was comunicating on fr.wiki and forgot to look again here. And to be honest... I don't understand to the question.
    Niusereset (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
    Your header requests unblocking of smilelist.xf.cz. Under number 3, you write webzdarma.cz. Which website are you looking for unblocking? Stifle (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

    www.lulu.com/product/paperback/productivity/16516142/

    Generally it is possible to use {{Cite book}} with this (without a url to the location on lulu.com). Would that be a solution here? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
    For this I'd say,   Not done. There isn't any requirement to have a link to a book in a citation. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

    www.windows8update.com

    • 1. windows8update.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    • 2. Windows_8
    • 3. I would like to request that my site be removed from the blacklist. It's a valuable and trusted Windows 8 resource that's over 2 years old with over 650 posts and over 1200 comments. It has completely unique content and at this point is a reputable source of Windows 8 information. It has more than 640,000 monthly pageviews and over 200,000 unique monthly visitors and a Newsletter audience of 35,000 readers. It's being blacklisted as part of the Nnigma network but has never engaged in any spam like activities of any kind. To be clear, I am not necessarily trying to add it to that Wikipedia Windows 8 page, I would just like it white listed in case any admin or third party would like to add any of my pages in the future. Almost all my competitors are listed and referenced for Windows 8. They are blogs similar to mine - Windows8news. Windows8beta. Windows8center. etc etc Thanks for your consideration. Ammalgam (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
      Declined. We don't whitelist pages in anticipation of constructive uses. If an established editor asks for whitelisting and demonstrates that including links to your website is beneficial to the encyclopedia, the request will be considered favorably. We also do not whitelist entire domains, especially at the request of site owners. MER-C 07:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    I'd like to see what is meant with "Almost all my competitors are listed and referenced for Windows 8". I see 3 microsoft external links, the rest are references. Are so many of these references blogs?? Hmm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

    Hi again, in the references section for Windows 8, numbers 4, 5, 9, 11, 13,14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 31 are blogs. I am defining blogs as web magazines run primarily by one person with a point of view - similar to mine. If there is an effort to restrict or remove blogs, why so many as references here? If those are valid, surely a blog with my statistics is just as valid. As for not whitelisting domains "in anticipation of constructive uses", I would then respectfully ask to be removed from the blacklist as a thorough examination of my site will show that it adds as much value if not more than the sites I have referenced above. Or would you be open to removing the sites above in order to show some consistency with your policy? P.S. 3 of the aforementioned reference sites are the sites I referred to in my original request - Windows8news. Windows8beta. Windows8center. Regards Ammalgam (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

    Several of those references you listed should be removed, in my opinion. Some (like #4) are redundant and appear to be there only so the blog can have a link on Wikipedia. If you want, go ahead and clean them out. Some unique items like information about leaks could be kept but better sources should be found. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

    Hi, thanks for the responses. Regarding the edits to the references, I will defer to the admins reading this thread. I just realized that I may be asking the wrong questions here. Maybe I am not trying to get whitelisted as much as to get off the blacklist? I really don't care if my site is listed on Wikipedia, I just don't want my site blacklisted for the reasons stated above. Is this the right section to be appealing to? If not, could an admin help me out here? Thanks Ammalgam (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

    This page is to request whitelisting of individual pages of sites that are blacklisted, not for requesting removal from the blacklist. Those requests should be posted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals.
    You may also want to look at the evidence that led to the listing of your site.
    However, I recommend you don't try to ask for removal. I would decline the request, as would any other admin. Sites are never removed from the blacklist at the request of the site owner, unless a clear and obvious error occurred (such as in collateral damage, when a wildcard expression in the blacklist unintentionally blocking a site). When a trusted, high-volume editor sees a need to add a link to your site and makes a request, then the request is considered.
    Your efforts would be better spent cleaning out the linkspam in the Windows 8 article. You may also propose on the article talk page that a link to your site be added as a reference, and if someone else agrees, that person can post a request here for a specific page to be whitelisted. You have a conflict of interest, so you should not add your links or make whitelisting requests yourself. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
    I'll save you some time; if you proposed removing it from the blacklist, I would mark it   Declined. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

    Hi again, that's fine. Thanks for the information ~Amatulić. You were very responsive and full of information. I will end it here. Admin Ohnoitsjamie, no need to be an asshole. This is wikipedia, you dont need to be malicious in your response tone. Message received. Ammalgam (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

    www.petitiononline.com/johndoe/

    • 1. petitiononline.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    • 2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe_(TV_series)
    • 3. In my searches through the internet of the subject of the John Doe tv series, I've found that most people that are searching the show are trying to find out if there's some sort of continuation: either a second tv season, plans for a movie, or even plans for a book series or comic series. Fans want to know what they can do to bring the show back. I believe this link is relevant because it shows that there are already near 30000 fans who have signed the petition, and as wikipedia is a high volume website, the fans that come here to look at the article wondering what they can do to encourage further development of John Doe will be pleased to have this link. If they come to the wikipedia page, honestly this link is probably the main piece of information they're looking for.
      Not done See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#Petitions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


    Expired requests (not done due to lack of reply)

    Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    www.examiner.com/fairies-in-national/interview-with-butch-hartman-on-the-fairly-oddparents

    I am trying to add this note with its corresponding ref, added below, for the Production section of the article A Fairly Odd Movie: Grow Up, Timmy Turner!. This is so far the only interview with Butch Hartman, creator of the series and the movie.

    {{quote|In The Examiner's interview with creator Butch Hartman, the movie was inspired by Hartman's motive to "take the series in a new direction" by doing "a live action/CGI combo movie".[1]

    89119 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


    web.archive.org on otherwise-dead link www.examiner.com/x-23511-Portland-Science-Examiner~y2009m9d14-Local-inventor-plans-Launch-Loop-to-gratly-reduce-cost--of-space-travel

    I was directed here when I was tried to use the above Wayback Machine link in Keith Lofstrom, an article that seemed to need more third-party reliable sources. The specific problem was with examiner.com, which I now see is mentioned under the Common Requests category. The author of this article, Charles Radley, appears (from the photo) to be same Charles Radley listed here: http://visible.me/charlesradley1958438, and here http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=269275&authType=name&authToken=0WPl&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore with personal and professional interests, and geographic location, strongly overlapping the subject of the article. So it's not impossible that there's a personal connection between Radley and Lofstrom. On the other hand, Lofstrom's listed affiliations check out, possibly making him a reasonably reliable source on the subject. I haven't checked all of Radley's social networks, but despite Radley having a few dozen connections on Google Plus, Lofstrom is not one of them. Yakushima (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


    Withdrawn requests, and requests that are malformed, invalid, or otherwise past relevance

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

    whitelisting not working (or more likely screwed up)

    I'm rather new here, but recently I did successfully add a helium.com page to the whitelist. The second time, not so lucky. I attempted to add

    I'm sorry that it took so long, but yes you can now link to [http://www.vietvisiontravel.com/tour/pgid/44/aid/5911/ this particular page] within vietvisiontravel.com. (Note the final slash: you specified the address without it, but this redirects to the version with it, and I therefore whitelisted the latter.) -- ~~~~

    to the user page of the person who'd made the request back in July, but it didn't take, because vietvisiontravel.com is blacklisted. Well yes it is, but I thought I'd whitelisted this particular page minutes earlier. ¶ Sorry if I screwed something up. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

    This should work: http://www.vietvisiontravel.com/tour/pgid/44/aid/5911/ --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    It was the � at the end, Hoary. � denotes the 'end or beginning of a word' .. on the left you had \/ (escaping a /), so there should be a 'word' at the right of the � .. but that was not there. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    Duh! Sorry! -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
    No problem, nothing really broke, it just did not work. <the rest of this post removed per WP:BEANS>. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)


    Discussion

    Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

    How does this discussion page work, anyway?

    Stifle writes above: only a few sysops actually do anything here, myself being the most active one by some margin. I sympathize. I might even be willing to help out. But I'm baffled by the process, and I'd guess that I'm not alone in my bafflement. Is the red-cross icon the same as the circle-with-a-minus icon? Is "not done" the same as "declined"/"denied"? If I, as an admin who's uninvolved in a given problematic website and the relevant articles here (and also one with next to no experience in white/blacklisting), find that a particular request is either a blazingly obvious yes or a blazingly obvious no, can/should I announce the (not just my) verdict with the relevant icon and, if it's agreement, whitelist the particular page(s)/site? Are the requests near the top of this page that have what appear to be definitive verdicts appended to them still at the top (a) because nobody's had time to move them downwards, or (b) because the verdicts actually aren't definitive? What if I read one admin's verdict, think I understand all that's said and is relevant, and disagree with the verdict: should I post my contrary verdict, should I avoid doing this but politely question the verdict here or on the admin's talk page, or should I discreetly shut up? Etc. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

    This discussion is kind of a mix of formal requests and informal formats. The tags for not done, declined, denied are interchangeable depending on your preference and how it fits with your response. They essentially all mean the same thing: the request is not granted.
    As an administrator, yes, you can investigate a request and if it's "blazingly obvious" what to do about it, then just do it. If it isn't blazingly obvious, then ask for clarification or move on to something else.
    Verdicts that are still at the top of the page are there simply because they haven't been moved into the resolved section. I'm not sure if there's even a bot that does this; I see it getting done manually from time to time. If you feel like moving them yourself, go right ahead.
    If you disagree with the decision of another admin, then as you should know, it is customary to write a note on the other admin's user talk page and come to an agreement or understanding, rather than revert the admin's decision. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you; I think I've got the general idea. I have "got my feet wet" by moving some unsuccessful requests downwards. However, I'll wait until I'm wider awake than I am now before I contemplate tampering with the actual blacklist. Additionally: it seems obvious to me that this request should be okayed; are we on the same wavelength? -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
    Be aware that the whitelist and blacklist are two different things. This talk page is for the whitelist.
    Yes, you should whitelist that helium.com link. I am the person who originally blacklisted helium.com and removed the helium.com links from over 200 articles a few months back. I just left a few that seemed relevant (and the blacklist won't kick in on those unless they are removed and then re-added).
    If you're unfamiliar with regex, here's a tutorial: http://www.regular-expressions.info/
    And remember to log your changes (see instructions at the top of the whitelist main page). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
    1. ^ Kumar, Kala (2011-07-03). "Interview with Butch Hartman on "The Fairly OddParents"". Examiner. Retrieved 2011-07-05.}
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/10&oldid=1108926186"