Wikipedia

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/10

< MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist | Archives
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Stifle in topic Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock)


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|1108004890#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 (web pages to unblock)

    Latest comment: 11 years ago207 comments59 people in discussion

    Approved requests

    aese2006.geology-guy.com/sd_geology_marshall.htm

    This is the second instance (see above entry) that I was unable to find on the local or global blacklist; I suspect the bot is producing some false positives. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    Followup: indeed; based on [blacklist filter], any .com link containing "guy" will trigger it...seems a bit drastic. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
    I see below another apparent false positive based on the "guy" blacklist. What has to be done to get that removed from the blacklist? And what was the rationale behind it anyhow? There must be thousands of perfectly innocent domains that contain "guy". They shouldn't all have to come here and bother you folks for a whitelisting. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
      Done OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

    Need link for biographical article please

    Why: This examiner interview was done by the Examiner page author "AC" not copied from elsewhere and I need it to cite a quote and remove citation needed.

    Which article: Ross Patterson

    Specific link: www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-interview-ross-patterson-talks-poolboy-strippers-hit-the-nuts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housewifehader (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

    Yes and I agree with the reasons for white-listing certain domains. The only reason that I want to use this examiner site is because it contains info. that was already in the article and this was the only source that I could find in finding a citation for a fact about an actor. Also, the link that I want to use is "exclusive", original content, (an interview), that is not found elsewhere.TeeVeeed (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

    Hello? Everyone OK here? I keep checking but there is a prob. on my contribution list so it is hard to re-find this topic. TYHousewifehader (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

    This is the only other article I could find that mentions him using fake IDs: http://nerd-base.com/2012/10/24/27-minutes-in-heaven-with-filmmaker-ross-patterson/ And I'm not entirely sure that's a reliable source. Me5000 (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

    Use particular examiner.com page

    I've never done this before so please correct me if I got something wrong. I'd like to use the examiner.com/article/ttu-vernacular-music-center-holds-first-multi-ensemble-outreach-meeting link to flesh out my reference to that article at the Vernacular Music Center article. I don't know about examiner.com (or why it is blacklisted) but that page looks like a good and suitable source. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

    Examiner contains documents which are often replaceable by other sources - it is blacklisted for spam reasons, and because they provide a spam-incentive (they pay everytime your page on examiner.com is visited, so people were spamming their documents here to get incoming traffic and hence money). We're generally only whitelist if there are absolutely no good replacements - does this give some alternatives? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks. I'm moving into a 7-10 day period where my wikipedia work might be sporadic. Might take be a bit of time to sort those out and respond. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    I looked at the link that you gave me. Of the 4, one is the subject Wikipedia article, one is the link under discussion, and two are to sites that give the first paragraph and link to the examiner article to read the rest. I'll look some more. North8000 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Looked some more, couldn't find it elsewhere. To recap, I consider using the article to be important. Having a live link to it is less important. So y'all decide....I can live with whatever that decision is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    Very scarce subject. I could not find any alternatives for "The Vernacular Music Center was founded at Texas Tech University in the Fall of 2000" Although the source says winter of 2000, so I'm not sure why the Wikipedia page says fall. Me5000 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    The first part of that post adds to the case for white-listing. The second (thanks!) points out an error in the article which I fixed. So the question is still open. To recap, I consider using the article to be important, having a live link to it is less important. So y'all decide....I'm fine with whatever that decision is. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

    Examiner.com review of Feudal game

    examiner.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

    • What: Examiner.com/article/feudal-an-abstract-battle-which-all-pieces-move-at-once
    • Where: Feudal (game)
    • Why: I understand that examiner.com is blacklisted because many of its pages are basically blog pages with unreliable content. The page I'd like to get whitelisted is a game review, which I'd like to use as a source for the critical reception of Feudal (game). This should be a suitable source of this information per WP:RSOPINION, and the article overall is fairly straightforward and consistent with what I have seen in other sources, like Board Game Geek and The Game Pile. Is this an acceptable reason to whitelist this particular page? And since I know you will ask, yes, I have read the FAQ, and there is absolutely no connection between myself and any content on Examiner.com. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    I suggest reject. I don't think it passes WP:RSOPINION. Your quote is not that person's opinion, it is one person making a statement for a large group. For a statement like that you would need multiple sources. Me5000 (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's one person, in the context of a review, summarizing the criticisms presented in other reviews. If I made the same statement in the WP article and cited the individual critical reviews on the Board Game Geek (those which this reviewer summarized), that would be WP:SYNTH. I don't see why a paraphrasing of a reviewer's summary of these critiques shouldn't be admissible as a reasonable and appropriate alternative to synthesizing these myself. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    WP:SYNTH does not say do not combine sources, it says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If all the sources say the same thing, they can be combined. Additionally, if you combining the reviews is original research, how is the reviewer combining the reviews not original research? Me5000 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's the reviewer acting as a secondary source, rather than a Wikipedia editor (and by extension, Wikipedia itself) acting as the secondary source. We can quote or paraphrase a secondary source that draws conclusions or advances a position, as long as we do so in a neutral context, but we as editors are not supposed to draw conclusions or advance positions ourselves. If I, as a WP editor, go around gathering up links to these critical reviews on BGG and then edit the WP article to say "critics complain of foo [1][2][3][4][5][6]" (if foo the essence but not the substance of their individual critiques - i.e. summarizing the points they were making but not closely enough to qualify as quoting or paraphrasing them) then I am using those reviews as primary source material and drawing my own conclusion based upon them. That's WP:SYNTH. The problem isn't the conclusion that is drawn, it's that WP is a tertiary source and should not be used by editors to draw their own conclusions, as if it were a secondary source. The conclusion itself is admissible if it passes WP:Neutrality. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    While I understand what you're saying I'm not entirely sure that it is an acceptable quote to use from the review, especially considering examiner.com is self published(doesn't that make the statement in the article exactly the same as if it were done on Wikipedia?). I could be wrong, I don't know. I have no power, it's ultimately up to the admin. Me5000 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    I quoted the WP article in my request, but that in turn was a paraphrasing of the Examiner.com reviewer's statement summarizing criticisms of the game (but not actually quoting Examiner.com). Anyway, thank you for raising your questions and allowing me the opportunity to make my case. Have a good day. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

    cable-car-guy

    cable-car-guy.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

    The blacklist is currently blocking all guy (dot) com adresses, I've posted here but nothing was done, and now cyberbot has tagged it again, with someone this time removing the link (Trams in Melbourne amongst other pages). I'd like to put the link back, but the blacklist issue needs to be sorted, I don't see why every domain ending in guy (dot) com is even blocked, but can someone either whitelist cable-car-guy (dot) com or remove guy (dot) com from the blacklist. Liamdavies (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

    Note: This is not a false positive.—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    It's clearly a false positive - the blacklist entry was one of several added in an edit with summary that explained it was blacklisting domain names belonging to a specific owner. Peter James (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    • It's been over a week so far, and this is clearly a miscatch, can an admin please look at whitelisting the entire domain. I note that back in March MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/06#Cable car guy this domain was noted as "[a] clear case of getting caught unintentionally" and subsequently approved for whitelisting by admin Stifle. As all the links currently in articles fall in the same boat, whitelisting should be a "no brainer". A complete list of articles affected and links involved is here as well as these two links, which have been removed: here and here. Liamdavies (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    •  Y Fixed blacklist entry. The whitelist entry only covered one specific URL, not the whole domain which was, as correctly said above and before, clearly an unintended match of the blacklist and needed to be sorted. Sorry this took so long. :( Amalthea 21:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.2ndchapterofacts.com on all of Wikipedia

    That would be great, but it would be good to have it whitelisted at some point, just in case the URL needs to be added somewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
      Done—cyberpower ChatOffline 13:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

    I'm not entirely sure that the base URL has been whitelisted as when I ran a test just now in my sandbox I could not save the URL and was informed that "The following text is what triggered our spam filter: 2ndchapterofacts.com". Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

    Sorry. I meant the link has been added to the bot's ignore list. I'm incapable of whitelisting links, as I'm not an admin.—cyberpower ChatOnline 23:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
     Y Domain whitelisted, this is a clear false positive of whatever that global blacklist entry was supposed to match. Amalthea 21:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.reverbnation.com/jdmalone and www.reverbnation.com/tomhampton

    These links are used as references on J.D. Malone and Tom Hampton articles as sources from the respective bands about themselves. Thisandthem (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

    www.reverbnation.com/alteraenigma and www.reverbnation.com/armageddonholocaust

    These links are used on the Altera Enigma and Armageddon Holocaust articles as primary sources from the respective bands about themselves.--¿3family6 contribs 15:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

    www.reverbnation.com/artist_933689/bio

    I would like this link as a citation for one of the albums I played on. THe article that would benefit is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Smith_Curry

    Please add the following link to the white list www.reverbnation.com/artist_933689/bio

    Domain name is

    Climber192 (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Climber192

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Climber192 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

    www.koolmuzone.pk/about/

    koolmuzone.pk: 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 have started an article on this blog (Koolmuzone) and wanted to link to it. Though I prefer www.koolmuzone.pk to be whitelisted only if it is technically possible while keeping other links blacklisted. --SMS Talk 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

     Y Done: If we have an article on the topic we need to link to it. Amalthea 15:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, I take it back: koolmuzone.pk isn't blacklisted, only koolmuzone.com, and the latter has been redirecting to .pk since at least 20 months. Amalthea 15:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    My bad, I don't know how I ended up doing this mistake. It was probably the one with .com that I tried to add to the article and was interrupted. My apologies for wasting time of the admins that work here. --SMS Talk 15:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.myretrotv.com/affiliates.html

    myretrotv.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 For use on List of Retro Television Network affiliates. Contains the official list of affiliates used by the article. Andyross (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.myretrotv.com/programming.html

    For use on List of Retro Television Network affiliates. Contains the official list of programmer per affiliate used by the article. Andyross (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.examiner.com/article/mike-scully-talks-the-simpsons-parks-and-recreation-napoleon-dynamite

    examiner.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

    This is for the article Napoleon Dynamite (TV series). I nominated this page for good article and am trying to improve it. I read /common requests and understand why the site is blacklisted. I am in no way affiliated with the site. The link is an interview with the producer of the series, Mike Scully. The link provides sources that can not be found elsewhere such as the date development of the show began, a direct quote and an additional reason why the Hesses delayed the project. Me5000 (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks, Stifle. Me5000 (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.plasticsurgery.org/public_education/procedures/BreastReconstruction.cfm

    This is a web site by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, which represents a very large fraction of plastic surgeons in the United States (they claim 94%). It contains a great deal of information on plastic surgery for consumers of such. I see that there has been some issue with that site in the past (in 2008, but at least one page specific exception has been allowed (www.plasticsurgery.org/x5.xml, in Nov-2009). While there is much general information on the site, and I think the entire site should be allowed, I'd at least like to revert the removal of a link at Breast reconstruction to “www.plasticsurgery.org/public_education/procedures/BreastReconstruction.cfm”. Rwessel (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

    Any update on this? Rwessel (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

    beacon.org

    beacon.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 have Beacon Press on my watchlist. I saw that Cyberbot tagged this page with its ugly orange bar, specifically because of links to Beacon Press's homepage, <www.beacon.org>. I don't understand why that would be blacklisted anyway, but it is certainly appropriate to link in the organization's article. LadyofShalott 14:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

    As I noted in the de-blacklisting request, I would suggest to whitelist specific links, not the whole domain (it was spammed with the specific goal to get incoming traffic). As to the homepage, that would need a specific page, like e.g. 'index.htm' or similar. Many of the other pages linking to beacon.org might need their links pruned, there are better places to link that information anyway, or it does not really add. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
    I was unaware of the spamming that had occurred until after I posted my request. Nevertheless, there are places, such as the Beacon Press article, where a link to the website would not constitute spam (and I do believe you were agreeing with that - I'm just reiterating it). The specific link for the homepage seems to be <//www.beacon.org/index.cfm>. I have not yet had time to check all the other beacon.org links to gauge which might be appropriate to keep and which not. LadyofShalott 16:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
     Y Done for http://www.beacon.org -- if any other links are found useful sources (there are quite a few in use at the moment) please list them here. Amalthea 14:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    The Blacklist banner appears at the top of the Sonia Sanchez page because Beacon Press publishes a great deal of her work and is therefore listed as an external link (http://www.beacon. org/contributorinfo.cfm?ContribID=1241). I'm removing the banner and noting that on the talk page there, since that seems an unquestionably reasonable place for a link to Beacon. Note: I just tried to save this with the link intact and it wouldn't let me because I was linking to a blacklisted site. It suggested that I request special dispensation to use the link on the whitelist page. I'm on the whitelist page. I just checked out the wiki article on Absurdism, and this whitelisting shenanegans didn't come up. It should probably be its own section. FutureImperfect (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    I have removed that link since I believe it was neither necessary nor appropriate, per WP:EL. Amalthea 20:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

    dhart.no-ip.info/iseries/9402-436%20ibm%20as400%20advanced%2036%20model%20436.htm

    dhart.no-ip.info/iseries/9404%20ibm%20as400%20system%20unit%20model%20cxx.htm

    www.beacon.org on Mike Gravel

    beacon.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

    There are two external links, www.beacon.org/client/client_pages/images/stair_ltr.jpg and www.beacon.org/client/pentagonpapers.cfm, that are used for the Mike Gravel article. These directly portray and discuss the act Gravel is most known for, the publication of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. I don't know why beacon.org is on the blacklist to begin with, but I see nothing objectionable in these two pages linked to. I therefore request they be put on the whitelist. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

    I now see that the issue of beacon.org in general was already raised above, and the response there was that they had spammed WP. That may be so, but in this case there are two links to specific pages at the site that do add value to the Gravel article. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
    @Wasted Time R:: The image is IMHO certainly uncontroversial, but is there no alternative for the second link? It's a primary source anyway, with the grandiose language you'd expect: "Ideologically, Beacon felt compelled to publish and agreed to take on the Pentagon Papers, despite financial and political risks".
    It is used on a couple of pages though (Pentagon Papers, Anthony Russo (whistleblower), Mike Gravel), and the spamming problem only affected a limited number of authors/books, so if you think it should remain in the pages say the word and I whitelist it.
    Amalthea 14:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    I think the two links should be whitelisted. As an "External links" entry it is appropriate - Beacon Press really did play a role in the whole Pentagon Papers affair, and external links entries are often primary sources. As a regular source in the Gravel article, a couple of the uses are for direct quotes and the like, but I need to review a couple of the other uses. But that's independent of the blacklist/whitelist question. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
    Ok,  Y Done. Please also take a look at Daniel Ellsberg which links to a related site. Amalthea 16:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.examiner.com/article/julianne-moore-talks-about-playing-a-bad-mother-what-maisie-knew

    examiner.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

    This is clearly a legitimate interview with Julianne Moore, and it is the longest, best interview I have come across with the actress talking about this role. I would like to use it to add information/comments to the Moore article. --Lobo (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

    media.ticketmaster.com/en-gb/img/sys/tournament/london2012/para-complete.pdf

    This single PDF document published by the company responsible for selling tickets to spectators at the 2012 Summer Paralympics is being used as the referenced source for the schedule of events during the games. There is no other source available that comes anywhere close to this one in usefulness as it is both authorotative (published by the official ticket seller) and fully comprehensive as it contains the specific schedule of absolutely every single scheduled event that happened during the entire 12 days of the 2012 Summer Paralympics]]. Replacing it would require dozens of other sources to be found and cited - this source has all the required information on a single page presented in a very accessible format. Concerns about spamming are not relevant in this instance as this is a long past event rather than upcomming. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2013 (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

    The following is reproduced verbatim, including other editors' signatures, from MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#NORM.org. I hope that is not an incorrect protocol.

    COPY/PASTE BEGINS

    NORM supplies information that upsets some people. It is a site with foreskin restoration information and is anti-routine male infant circumcision. This means that people have split into entrenched warring camps. This site is likely to have offended someone rather than, itself, being spam. It does have items for sale, yes, but this is not its primary function. Please look at the original reaosn for listing with care and determine if the site is genuinely spammy, with a view to delisting it. Fiddle Faddle 16:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

    They don't sell anything, here is a citation from the website, "devices" section: "NORM does not endorse any device below and all information is provided as a service to help you find the device that works the best for you. Please compare prices, features and talk with other men who are restoring before making a purchase" -- This is a non-commercial, informative organzation (E-Kartoffel (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC))
    As an advocacy site, I don't see how it would typically meet WP:RS guidelines.   Defer to Whitelist for individual links. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

    COPY/PASTE ENDS

    If I should have done something differently here please {{Ping}} me and explain what I ought to have done, or ought not to have done. Fiddle Faddle 23:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC) 

    http://www.norm.org
http://www.norm.org/history.html
http://www.norm.org/regimen.html

    please Fiddle Faddle 18:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

    Chaps, we seem to have stalled? Fiddle Faddle 22:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    This page has a backlog due to the few editors active here.
    For the first link, does norm.org have a index.htm or something like that - whitelisting what you currently suggest will open up everything again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    http://www.norm.org/index.html will work. I admit I had not considered that, but I am not a regex expert at all. Fiddle Faddle 11:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Having seen this I went with excitement to NORM-UK and modified norm.org to read norm.org/index.html, but it still failed to accept the link just now. Please would you have a look and help me? Fiddle Faddle 11:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

    There are a few trade-magazine items used in AlphaWindows which I found useful in showing the context, which appear online only in cbronline.com (mainly due to the age of the topic) - I'd like to whitelist just those pages. One is in the Internet Archive, the other ones are not TEDickey (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

    Can you post the specific links (just leave off the 'http://' from the beginning of each link and it will save here just fine). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

    This is what the bot reported:

    • www.cbronline.com/article_cg.asp?guid=3D06E828-77D2-4B6F-AB70-A0A8CA6A5E4E
    • www.cbronline.com/article_cg.asp?guid=7640A611-66EE-4F3E-B5CA-2A83F4E99CFC
    • www.cbronline.com/article_cg_print.asp?guid=DC8B5C6D-E68F-44A8-AE7B-743E23F4A39E
    • www.cbronline.com/news/cumulus_technology_wins_contract_from_unisys

    These are replacements (same contents, found using the titles):

    • www.cbronline.com/news/first_alphawindows_character_based_terminals_set_for_to_appear_in_may_at_from_600
    • www.cbronline.com/news/microvitec_first_past_post_in_europe_with_alphawindows_terminals_ibm_oem_pact_in_prospect
    • www.cbronline.com/news/colour_and_mono_alphawindow_terminals_from_link
    • www.cbronline.com/news/cumulus_technology_wins_contract_from_unisys

    For comparison, see Twin (windowing system) which may have been influenced by this TEDickey (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

    abseits-soccer.com on Berliner AK 07

      Resolved

    The links looks good to me, I think the story is told in a useful way (different from Wikipedia's approach). Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

    wirelessbollinger.com

    • wirelessbollinger.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
    • Note I actually want to use an archived copy at: web.archive.org/web/20081008005138/http://www.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.com/content/view/342/81/ not the original website. (Used XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX instead of wirelessbollinger)
    • Note: no LinkSummary of the archived copy was possible due to restrictions on using the blacklisted link.
    • I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this request, please excuse me, if I have it wrong. I was editing Post when I noticed a hatnote about a blacklisted site.

    The original site appears to have been hijacked after I first used it back in September 2008. I tried to use the above archiveurl to supply an archived copy of the webpage from 8 October 2008, which is presumably prior to the subversion of the site. The original site supplies a professional review of the article's subject. I tried to replace the existing reference:

    <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.com/content/view/342/81/ |title=Paul Kelly: ''Post'' |publisher=Wireless Bollinger |last=Pearsall |first=Justin |date=21 May 2007 |accessdate=19 September 2008}}</ref>

    with an archiveurl one:

    <ref>{{cite web|archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20081008005138/http://www.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.com/content/view/342/81/ |url=http://www.XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.com/content/view/342/81/ |title=Paul Kelly: ''Post'' |publisher=Wireless Bollinger |last=Pearsall |first=Justin |archivedate=8 October 2008 |date=21 May 2007 |accessdate=26 September 2013}}</ref>

    However the edit was blocked with a notice about using a blacklisted site. Hence I have asked for the archive copy to be allowed for this article.

    The site's review provides a wider understanding of the article's subject by giving a United States perspective on an Australian album from 1985. This makes the article more accessible to a US audience.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

    • Please post the precise link you want whitelisted as I can't figure it out from your request. Put it between <nowiki> and </nowiki> and it will save properly. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.gayot.com/interviews/curtisstone.html

    • gayot.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
    • On Curtis Stone, a notice was posted by Cyberbot II indicating that the above referenced link is blacklisted. I checked the global blacklist and found nothing. I checked the local blacklist and only found "\bgayot\.com\b". Is this perhaps a false positive?
    • The link appears only in the External Links section, so it's not a reference. I looked at the interview, and it's nothing stellar. I don't think that removing the link would harm the article in any way, but it doesn't hurt it, either. Sophie Gayot (the interviewer) seems to be a fairly reliable source (although she is involved with marketing). There is a reference attributed to her on another site that appears to be in the same family of related websites.
    • The Gayot site does indicate that it is written by "a team of savvy restaurant critics and food, travel and lifestyle experts, Gayot reviews are informative, honest and witty. Above all, they tell it like it is!" gayot.com/aboutus/history.html#sophie (I'm curious if the preceding link will be blacklisted or not. [Edit: It was.])
    • Thank you for your consideration. —Willscrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta ) 22:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
    • If it's not a reference, I'm not sure there's a point in whitelisting it. Does it pass WP:ELNO item 1? Stifle (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
      Thanks for replying. It may not be a reference, but it does interfere with trying to save the edit to the page, plus it gets flagged by the bot. As far as ELNO goes, it's not a bad bit of additional reference material (it's an interview with the subject of the article after all). So, it could be deleted, and we wouldn't lose much. Or, we could whitelist it, and people would gain a little bit of extra insight into the subject. It wasn't my link, so I really have no strong feelings either way about it. However, it seems that it does more good than harm, which is why I submitted it here. I'm not familiar with all the nuances of ELNO, so I'll leave that determination up to those who are. —Willscrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta ) 19:25, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
    •   Done Stifle (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.examiner.com/article/at-79-johnny-thunder-still-active-decades-after-loop-de-loop-hit

    The article Johnny Thunder (singer) needs this page as it explains about a mistake widely spread in the internet about his birth year (1941 instead of 1932). I tried to fix the refs in that page and got a blacklist message. I can't find this information elsewhere. I am new to the black/whitelist process, so I hope this request is done right. Hoverfish Talk 21:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

    • Request is formatted fine, but have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I just did. I am in no way connected to this site and didn't even know about it until I came to check on this malformed citation. I have been checking on biography data of musicians, specifically birth and death date and place.[1]. This is one of the cases where wikipedia has been displaying data that contradicts the usual internet sources (allmusic, imdb, discogs, etc). I even contacted a music historian outside wikipedia[2] to set another such birthday claim right. I have no other interest than the precision of the data we display. And apart from obituaries and news articles, all these other sources we use are also written by contributors. In this case, I do not see any reason to doubt Bill Herald's claim that he is in fact quoting the musician himself about his true age. So although I have no wish to see www.examiner.com whitelisted, I still find this one page useful to explain why we have it different from other sources. Taking Bill Herald's claim that he was "a part-time disc jockey and newscaster on Nashville's top-rated radio station (WKDA) in the early 1960s" as truthful, then I see how he could have a first hand quote by the musician, which I find nowhere else. Hoverfish Talk 19:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    •   Done Stifle (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.examiner.com/article/cookie-dance-by-chip-chocolate-a-youtube-itunes-viral-hit-among-drake-songs?cid=rss

    For use on Chip Chocolate; currently located at User:Launchballer/Chip Chocolate. Article cannot be found elsewhere on the web and this article confirmed it originated there.--Launchballer 19:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

    • Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
      Thanks for the talkback; in future, you are probably better off tagging me in the comment at the time. I read it once then and have read it again today; I still feel the article would be useful because Wn.com confirms that it originated there and it is pertinent to the subject in hand. Not least the fact that the article has quite a few tags on it and this would go some way to resolving them. I can confirm that I am unaffiliated with Examiner.com.--Launchballer 18:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
      With regards to talkbacks, as noted at the top we normally don't notify people about updates to their requests. I don't know how the tagging system works and don't intend to learn. It is incumbent on requesters to check regularly if there has been a change in status.
      As for this request, I think it should be fine to approve. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
    •   Done although without the ?cid=rss bit. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

    nepa.com.np/jhinewa/article.php?type=festivals&id=navadurga

    nepa.com.np: 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

    chanelreplica.com

      Resolved

    www.chanelreplica.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

    • Previously when this was caught by the Cyberpower67 bot, I argued for this to have an exception as follows:
    "I closely examined this site recently flagged as on the blacklist for Chanel and it seems to be legit - ChanelReplica.com is used by the Chanel company to give advice and warning about counterfeit goods, and the links from that page go to examples of sites where Chanel's lawsuits successfully shut down their operations and the Chanel company was granted ownership of those domains (such as [3]). Although it DOES look at first glance like mega-spam, it's not at all." It's an appropriate site for the Chanel page and appropriately used one time to support a statement about counterfeit goods on the page Mabalu (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    Blacklisted at meta, the request asked to blacklist a whole batch of pages offering replicas. The whois record suggests that this is indeed a site by Chanel Inc informing about replicas, just as you said. Based on that I would suggest getting it de-blacklisted at Meta. Amalthea 15:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    I tried adding a request there, but was blocked as I don't have an account there - will get account and try again, thanks. Mabalu (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    De-blacklisted at meta, thanks Dirk. Amalthea 10:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

    examiner.com.au

      Resolved

    examiner.com.au: 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

    That is a bot error, examiner.com.au was inadverntently blocked until recently, but that was repaired October 5. I just verified that I can add one of the links, and the "unknown" in the bot template does show that it seems to have a problem there.
    Amalthea 23:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
    I was here to request the same whitelisting for this from the Examiner, used at Wielangta forest. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
    Looks like all remaining examiner.com.au tags were removed. Amalthea 10:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

    Denied requests

    youtu.be/fkSJpty5fck

    youtu.be: 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 use this link on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen_Con article. Tom Vasel is a renowned individual in the tabletop gaming industry and breaks down attendance numbers, game releases, event activity, etc. This news video would be excellent to use as a reference for the Gen Con link. Thanks! Roy D Anderson (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

    Not needed, you can use http://youtube.com/watch?v=fkSJpty5fck.   Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

    www.reverbnation.com/enormous

    Please add the following link to the white list www.reverbnation.com/enormous

    This link is used on the Enormous_(band) article as a primary source from the respective band about themselves and would therefore benefit that article. Ian Youngs (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

    www.examiner.com/list/downton-abbey-cooking-from-soup-to-nuts/christmas-pudding-steamed-and-flaming

    www.bet-at-home.com on bet-at-home.com

    bet-at-home.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 the link www.bet-at-home.com whitelisted in the article bet-at-home.com. It was recently tagged as a spam link by Cyberbot II. I asked on the discussion page to ignore the link (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cyberpower678/spam-exception.js) because in past I tried to remove this link from the global blacklist (meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2012-07#bet-at-home.com). But it was not possible. Only a temporary global unblocking to put the url in the article was possible. Now some Wikipedia users recommended to write here for whitelisting to get a permanent solution for this problem. Thanks --Bah2011 (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
    As suggested earlier, I would consider to get this removed from the meta blacklist, therefore   Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.otrcat.com

    examiner.com/about

    examiner.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 to facilitate discussion of the site's editorial policy at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airomo and elsewhere —rybec 21:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

    Not sure why. That page doesn't really say anything about an editorial policy, and there's nothing preventing anyone from including URLs without the 'http' prefix. The purpose of the whitelist isn't convenience. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
      Declined per Amatulić and deletion discussion is closed. Me5000 (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    The page says "We have an in-house editorial team that provides guidance and mentorship to the contributors." How is that not saying anything about an editorial policy? The comment about "URLs without the 'http' prefix" applies equally to any request made here. The blacklist isn't for needlessly causing inconvenience by blocking pages that aren't harmful. —rybec 17:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

    www.beacon.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=2255

    On Kate Bornstein, this is a book that they have written. It will surely be appropriate for the article somewhere. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

      Declined The publisher's store page for a topic is not something that we generally link to, per our guideline on external links. We list the title and ISBN in the bibliography, and link to her official page, that I believe is sufficient for the interested reader. Amalthea 14:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.ehow.com/about_5372890_meaning-impounding.html

    Very good article describing how the term Impoundment is used is many aspects of law and how they are related to each other and the non-legal origins of the word. Having trouble finding another web page that does the same. Perfect reference for Impoundment (political).

    I don't know about the rest of eHow, but this article has good quality, and the writer clearly has knowledge of the subject. There are no obvious commercial interests (product placement, etc.) on the page. The author bio indicates that independent of the site, she would be a good source:

    Cindy Hill

    A freelance writer since 1978 and attorney since 1981, Cindy Hill has won awards for articles on organic agriculture and wild foods, and has published widely in the areas of law, public policy, local foods and gardening. She holds a B.A. in political science from State University of New York and a Master of Environmental Law and a J.D. from Vermont Law School.

    I have no connection whatsoever to the author.

    www.ehow.com/about_5372890_meaning-impounding.html Dovid (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

    • Have you read /Common requests? Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Thank you, for noting this, Stifle. Yes I did read it, which is why I specifically addressed the issues suggested there. See above about author credentials, lack of commercial interests. I assert that I have no connection to the author, but I'm not sure how I could prove that. However, if you look at my edit history, you will find 1) extensive edits, 2) no specific bearing on this area beyond recent interest, 3) that the whitelisting is for an article that is tangentially connected to a bunch of other articles that I edited in the same time period that would have no use for this link. Dovid (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

    www.nowpublic.com/world/universe-sex-space-marks-new-era-mankind

    nowpublic.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

    You do realise that this site is "a user-generated social news website" without editorial oversight, run by the same people as examiner.com (i.e., publish on our site and get paid when people read your article, so make sure that you have incoming links everywhere so the chances are good that they come?). I think that for most of this facts, either they are not notable facts anyway, or there will be other, better sources that can be used as a source. The rest, maybe, should be specifically whitelisted (like a suitable link, index.htm?, on NowPublic itself). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

    mrskin.com/Skinterviews/102/Georgina_Spelvin.htm

    Links to an interview with the subject of the page. So it's a legitimate link
    I'd think with the amount of free time the Wiki spergs have, they could afford to assign a few of their biological units to check things out like this personally, rather than writing so many faulty "bots". Still I suppose if banning things is what gets you people off, writing code to ban things must be the closest you'll ever get to an orgasm.
    This is my second attempt at posting this. Apparently the site is banned from mentioning until I raise the issue on the talk-page for your spam whitelist. Isn't that.... this page here? Jeebus you people are useless. I dunno which is more objectionable, your badly-written, untested software, or the socially-maladjusted wierdoes you let write it. Remove the BLAH. I haven't all day to navigate your collective brainfarts when I'm trying to actually help correct one of your mistakes.
    No I do not work for Mr x. Genuinely just a passer-by, who's not impressed for the millionth time with the botwar of badly-written code you seem to have handed control of the site over to. I'm here to correct your mistake, not navigate the rules you didn't give enough thought to writing when you wrote your "bot". 188.29.165.174 (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

    activerain.com/blogs/theleateam

    I am the author of this blog and I use legitimate market research to determine market trends. I have carefully researched the market in Highland Park, Chattanooga, TN and feel the information would be helpful the the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park,_Chattanooga Jocando (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.historyandpolicy.org

    This is an academic research site on UK business history and policy. A paper on the site is linked to at Supermarket. There is no earthly reason this site should be blacklisted. Choor monster (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

      Declined - This would be a matter for the Blacklist, where a similar discussion is already under way. However,   Approved for the link at Supermarket as this instance is a valid resource. Euryalus (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

    uservoice.com/forums/209451

    I would like to add this url to the External links at Yahoo! Groups. The url points to the Yahoo! Groups official feedback forum. I was advised to come here at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Site_registered_on_Wikipedia.27s_blacklist.3F_-_Yahoo.21_groups. Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

    Expired requests

    Withdrawn requests

    prouty.org/index.html

    prouty.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'm requesting whitelisting the site's main index page, as an alternative to de-listing, in response to back-and-forth OTRS communication with a representative of prouty.org. The site was blacklisted for hosting an attack page of a critic, and while that attack page is still there, the site overall serves as a reference site for information about Col. L. Fletcher Prouty. It seems natural for the L. Fletcher Prouty article to have a link to that site. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

    You're an administrator, you don't need to request and can just do it :) Stifle (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
    I know I can just do it. I didn't think it was proper because of my communication with the representative via OTRS, so I posted the request to ensure there's a record in the log. Can't really reference OTRS communication in the log. I'll go ahead and do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2006/07/18/5002.shtml

    Kavkaz Center seems to be blocked. I just need to be able to cite to the one news article above. There was a paragraph in Yvonne Ridley's page that was removed a couple of years ago under BLP because the cite for the quote wasn't provided. Having tracked it down, I'd like to be able to use it as the cite. AFAIK, the article is not published elsewhere on the internet. Thanks. Bromley86 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I should have mentioned that the article is written by Ridley herself.Bromley86 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks for replying Stifle. Not sure what you mean by biased. It's a faithful reproduction (published 6 days after first publication & fully accredited) of an article she personally wrote in a now-defunct magazine (DailyMuslims.com). I've searched using paragraphs from it and found plenty of web-board confirmations that it originally came from the Daily Muslims article. The Daily Muslims was cited in an earlier version of the WP page, before the DM site went down.
    I don't agree with the views, but it does confirm a couple of statements in her bio, namely "Ridley wrote an article referring to Basayev by the Muslim honorific shaheed, meaning "martyr"" and "She went on to refer to Basayev as leader of "an admirable struggle to bring independence to Chechnya"." Aside from this, we currently have a partial confirmation of the first quote from a Guardian piece, but it lacks any context; we currently have no other confirmation of the second quote. AFAIK, the Daily Muslims was a reasonably reliable source before it shut down, certainly when articles she's written are used to confirm her views; she's been a proper journalist, written a couple of books and been a candidate in elections (with a decent share of the vote). As mentioned, earlier versions of the WP page used to link directly to the Daily Muslims article, but when that link died a fact tag was added and, without support being available, the paragraph was later removed. Bromley86 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
    The Wayback Machine site http://archive.org is often used on Wikipedia to restore dead links. Can that be done here? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks Amatulic. I'd recently discovered Wayback and have been using it whenever I bump into dead links, but in this case it didn't seem to work so I ignored it: "The page isn't redirecting properly" (http://www.dailymuslims.com/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=2255&Itemid=238). However, trying again, I see that getting rid of the space after php? gets me some hits. Problem is, they all seem to be "Latest News & Articles" pages. Bromley86 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
    The article appears to have in fact been published on the daily muslims website: http://web.archive.org/web/20060714015331/http://www.dailymuslims.com/ It appears that at some point daily muslims changed the way it links to articles and nobody changed it, so the link just takes you to "Latest News" and the updated link is lost. If you go to a more recent version: http://web.archive.org/web/20090220061109/http://dailymuslims.com/ you can click on news articles and it will take you to the article instead of latest news and it is a completely different link format. I don't know about the site as a whole, but this particle article does appear to be an accurate reproduction of the original article and I can't find any alternatives. Me5000 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    It's a good platform's page contained useful information,it's convenient for the searcher to find the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeykingwjj (talk • contribs) 14:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

      Stale Stifle (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

    www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/local/campaigners-hand-over-petition-in-a-bid-to-protect-speckled-wood-in-ore-1-4236497

    hastingsobserver.co.uk: 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

    This link is to a well reputed News Paper in the United Kingdom. It has been used to show the current situation in regard the Speckled Wood article. It seems quite natural to use a link to a news paper and this link should not be blacklisted. Section5drummer (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

    Not blacklisted, this is a mis-catch by the tagging-bot (I have already repeatedly poked the bot owner to untag the articles with mistaken tags).   Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


    Discussion

    What is taking so long?

    I want to cite Blythe. Do we need more moderators here?TCO (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

    Perennial problem, but the answer is: Yes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
    Gymnastics Examiner still not processed 3 months later. Did you all change your mind? There is no funny business. It has a very sober tone. Is run by a journalist who has press passes to major events (the USAG federation uses social media...Wiki should even look into some liason for photos). I'm not a political POV person or someone trying to make money or the like.TCO (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

    Gymnastics Examiner still not working

    This request was marked as approved (with some note of wait for someone to implement) on 03MAR. It remained like that for several months. It was now just recently archived along with a general page cleanup. I went and tested a link and it is still not working. Help.

    TCO (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    Shortage of people actively maintaining the white and blacklists. I have now   Done this addition. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

    How long does it take to get an answer?

    Hello, I am sorry to be impatient, but I am wondering how long it takes to get an answer for the submitted link. There isn't a backlog here and reviewing the link takes, I'm guessing, less than 5 minutes. Me5000 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

    When I see a request for an examiner.com link like you posted, it goes to the bottom of my mental priority queue. All too often, I am able to find perfectly adequate alternatives that are not blacklisted, and spending effort to do that requires far more than 5 minutes. I'm not inclined to compensate for the laziness of others, although occasionally I do (see the request just above yours, for example). Even if someone claims the information is not available elsewhere, all too often I find that claim to be false, and verifying the truth of such a claim takes a long time. I'm not saying that's applicable to your specific case, but if other admins have had similar experiences with examiner.com requests, I offer it up as a reason why you are waiting so long. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    I was starting to wonder the same thing since my request, at a month old, is by far the oldest of only four requests that still have no response. I guess Amatulić just answered why. I've checked for alternative sources, I've checked the FAQ and the reasons why Examiner.com was blacklisted, and I have been unable to find any alternative to whitelisting this page, which does seem to fit criteria for whitelisting. I don't know what else I can do to help out. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
    That's unfortunate. I've been checking this page 2-3 times a day since I posted the request and would much rather use an alternative link than wait. Considering my particular page is an interview and I'm using a direct quote there is no alternative. I have even found other interviews and used a couple in the article, but none of them have the exact information I need for parts of the page. Obviously, you have to verify that yourself and can't take my word for it though. I was really hoping to get it quickly white listed, especially since I nominated my article for GA. I will try to be more patient. Me5000 (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

    Is there some way I can help out?

    Hello, Is there some way I can help out here? I have learned that reviewing links takes awhile and many editors don't want to mess with it, so what can I do to help out on this page? Is any editor allowed to review the links and make decisions? Me5000 (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

    Non admins are welcome to comment and make recommendations, but admins must make the final decisions.
    If you can find alternative sources for some of the links requested here, that would encourage the requester to withdraw the request, or make it easier for an administrator to decline it. Links to whitelist examiner.com pages often have alternatives that will work if you look hard enough.
    I've always thought that this page could use "clerks", trusted editors who are empowered to decline requests with good reason, or recommend white-listing. That's the way it works over at WP:SPI. There are clerks (in this case non-checkusers) who can decline requests for checkusers, or recommend that a checkuser get involved, to make the checkusers' job easier.
    But as long as we don't have clerks, there's still nothing preventing you from helping out by researching sources, engaging in discussion with requesters, and making recommendations to admins. I say, go right ahead! Help is welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
    I don't see a compelling reason to have formal clerks. Anyone who is reasonably capable and trusted can do housekeeping, recommendations, close withdrawn requests, archiving, etc. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

    Can I close any requests?

    I know I was told admins make the final decision, but I'm wondering if I am allowed to close out the easy ones? For example, the one about the Penn Creek Massacre. I think that was an easy deny and close in the first place, but now it's definitely a deny and close, as it's already been changed to my suggestion. Then there's one where more information was asked for on 8/14, it looks like generally you wait 10 days then close it out due to no response (rwservices.no-ip.info). It just seems to me like if it's a really easy one like I just described there's not much point in requiring an admin to close it out. Me5000 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

    I guess no answer means no. Oh well, I was just trying to make it easier for the admin here because he doesn't seem to have much time. Me5000 (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    If they are easy non-controversial closes that do not require adding things to the whitelist feel free. However I would leave closes that require adding things to the whitelist to admins who can actually preform the closing action. Werieth (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks, I was able to close out 5 easy ones. Me5000 (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
    Me5000, all help would be great, both here and on the blacklist. Here for example, closing the ones which are just unsuitable (because there are alternatives, they are requests for whitelisting a redirect site, etc.) would be helpful, as well as assessing the ones which should be whitelisted (in the form of a bit of explanation and a recommendation with enough information so that admins can just perform the action without too much further research. On the blacklist that would be similar (both for the to-be-blacklisted links as for the proposed removals). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/10&oldid=1108004890"