Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/09

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

Approved Requests

www.cbronline.com/news/sco_blames_groklaw_for_ip_licensing_disappointment

Request a CBR Online URL whitelisted

Please whitelist:

  • www.cbronline.com/news/sco_blames_groklaw_for_ip_licensing_disappointment

One article at CBR is vital evidence.

This is a news source, a secondary source, showing no connection between IBM and Pamela Jones. The article Pamela Jones is greatly diminished without it. We already have the primary source, the IBM court filing asserting no connection, but as we know Wikipedia prefers secondary sources where possible. I really can't believe a news site, Computer Business Review, is blacklisted, but nonetheless I'd really appreciate the above article whitelisted. I got the spam blacklist notice when I was working on fixing dead links. The reference is currently at #12 in the article, with a dead link flag (the reference is live at the URL I've posted here). —Aladdin Sane (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Suite101.com 'about us' page

Please whitelist:

  • //www.suite101.com/about   and
  • //www.suite101.com/   or   //www.suite101.com/daily.cfm

Suite101.com is essentially a self-publish article host that pays its contributors by pageviews. This has led to the insertion into Wikipedia of numerous spam links to articles hosted by them, leading to the current spam site ban. However, the company Suite101.com itself has not spammed Wikipedia, and it's notable in its own right. Please unblock the main page so that the Suite101.com article can include a link to the corporate site, and the 'about us' page so that it can be used as a source reference in the article about Suite101.com. Thanks, --LK (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OldUnreal.com

I cannot find this website on the blacklist entries but alas, I still cannot reference it. The article where I want to reference this particular website (Specifically: oldunreal.com/oldunrealpatches.html) is Unreal. The changes I want to make to the article require that link as a reference to show where I retrieved the information about the latest Unreal patch. You can find my post I wish to make here: wiki.pastebin.com/ETKqfZHp. 74.13.32.41 (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2008#oldunreal.com and

I see quite serious abuse and meatpuppetry going on, so that was the reason why it was blacklisted in the first place. I am also not sure if this is an independent source for the info, so although I am not saying that this should not be whitelisted, I'd like some more input on this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read the Unreal article you'll notice in the beginning it says the source code was given to a third party, OldUnreal IS that third party. oldunreal.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?board=227 Is where you can see development going on. Thanks, I hope I can get this approved. 74.13.32.41 (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That does not make the site an independent site for the information that you want to reference. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreal is a game from 1998 so a new patch won't make news on many websites. OldUnreal is a reliable source which Unreal users rely on for their updates on the Unreal community. The only other reference I know of about the 227 patch is hyper.dnsalias.net/files-patches.htm. Would that be a better site to reference? There are only TWO reliable sources left for Unreal and EpicGames has left the development up to the developers at OldUnreal so it's almost as good as citing EpicGames themselves. Are you saying if a major gaming company made an announcement on their website that they were developing a new game/patch, that website would not be a good website to reference for such information? Or have I misunderstood your point? 74.13.55.199 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would call it a primary source, which does not have to be bad, but .. lets call it 'discouraged'. I would value some more input of other regulars on this. The original blacklisting was due to a form of abuse which which would make me hesitant to whitelist link, the text that is on that page is promoting, and it is, as I said, a primary source. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No argument here, there is no better source, so I will wait for other input and hope this gets approved. The article is a version behind and the only way I know of to prove the latest version is with those two websites, thank you. 74.13.55.199 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ehow.com - Stainless steel soap source

ehow.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

internationalliving

Please whitelist the following specific page:

  • www1.internationalliving.com/qofl2010

while leaving the whole website blocked.

It's needed for the last chapter ("quality of life index") in the article Developed country. No need to whitelist the whole website. Eliko (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This request seems reasonable and I am inclined to approve it. I will do so in a few days if I do not see any reasons not to. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Eliko (talk) 14:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done Stifle (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

yfrog.com

yfrog.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 add sources for yfrog, I request that www.yfrog.com/faq.php and /partners.php be whitelisted. —Waterfox (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This request seems reasonable and I am inclined to approve it. Leaving open for a few days for additional comments. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done Stifle (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com / Frank Sherosky

I’m writing an article about a CAD file translation program. The sandbox is HERE on my user page. I understand the nature of what can go onto Examiner.com.

However, there are exceedingly few independent authors writing reviews and explanations about CAD programs. In this particular case, http:// … www.squidoo.com/Author-Frank-Sherosky is a bona fide author and, as a recently retired CAD design engineer from GM, he certainly qualifies as a reliable source on this particular subject. I confirmed with the owner of theTransMagic company (Jerry) that this author is not an employee of theirs and was not paid for the article.

The link I want to use is “Examiner.com: http:// … www.examiner.com/automotive-technology-in-detroit/auto-suppliers-suffer-heavy-burden-of-industry-s-multiple-cad-systems”. The statement I hope to cite is “However, problems arise when files must be shared with outside companies, which may use a different type of CAD program.” That statement is pretty much CAD 101, but just because it is obvious to those in the field does not mean it is obvious to everyone; it would be nice to have an outside RS expanding upon that exact issue to use as a ref.

BTW, my interest in this is that I own Cobalt (CAD program) and I own TransMagic (the file translation software I’m writing about). I am expert on both and the TransMagic software enables me to share files with outside consulting engineers (who tend to use SolidWorks). Believe me, 90% of Web-available stuff on CAD programs are just regurgitated press releases. I need a tad more leeway with CAD-related articles. And since Frank Sherosky is a CAD expert who worked at General Motors, he authoritatively can speak to the issue of trying to share CAD files within the auto industry.

P.S. I use this account purely as a sandbox. I don’t vote or engage in debate with it. Greg L (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Examiner.com articles are primarily self-published with no editorial oversight, and authors are offered financial incentives to increase page views. Can you please explain how this page meets WP:RS and identify the author of the examiner.com article in question? Stifle (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Quoting you: Can you please explain how this page meets WP:RS and identify the author of the examiner.com article in question? I did. HIs name is Frank Sherosky. I addressed all your concerns and provided links, above. I just-now broke my request into five paragraphs to make it easier for you to parse. In this case, Frank is writing to increase awareness of his expertise in CAD-related automotive issues, where he spent much of his professional career. Greg L (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

    P.S. Please advise as to what sort of information is missing from the above. I’ve provided a link to the examiner page, a link to the author, described his expertise, how he is not associated with the company that makes the software and was not paid (I confirmed that), described the nature of the problem, the link to the article-in-progress, and quoted the text I hope to cite. Is there something I forgot? Greg L (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Greg L, the problem is not that he was paid to write the article, the problem is that anyone following the link to his article will result in him being paid (and that for every single hit, even if people don't even read it ..). That was one of the reasons examiner ended up on the blacklist (and then there are other often other concerns). But I agree with you, you clearly state that the editor is knowledgeable in the field, etc. etc. Therefore, I will add this one to the whitelist. Consider plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Denied Requests

cypress.com

Was looking to update on the Cypress PSOC page when I realised that the Cypress domain has once again been blacklisted on Wiki. Request to whitelist the domain as Cypress Semiconductor is a billion dollar company listed on NASDAQ. Belmond (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)Belmond

What is the specific link(s) you wanted to insert? Given the history of spamming here, whitelisting the whole domain is not an option. MER-C 03:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Cypress Site looks like it has dynamic URL's most of the URL's are ID=xxxx. Given that would it be possible to only whitelist a certain section of the site say the PSOC section. Belmond (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Belmond

You will need to be more specific; we are not going to go out and figure out what ID number you're looking for. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 Denied due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/x-41907-Harrisburg-Sustainable-Foods-Examiner~y2010m4d8-The-new-CSA-on-the-block-Wooden-Hill-Farms

I would like to link to a specific article, but the entire Examiner.com site is blacklisted. I am using it as a reference on the Student Sustainable Farm at Rutgers page. Can this article please be whitelisted? Mlecin (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

www.aceshowbiz.com

I would like that the link www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00018345.html could be in the whitelist, because on it I found very important information about the article Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song) that I could not found on others websites, like the release of the music video, a cameo that a dance-crew made on it, and other things. The article is currently a good article nominee and those information is important. Thanks TbhotchTalk C. 01:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

And is that site a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Didn't you approved the same site (see below) before?. TbhotchTalk C. 16:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but each whitelisting request is considered on its own merits. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it is reliable because, by common sense, have a fact (you can see the music video), like the JabbaWockeeZ cameo in one scene. TbhotchTalk C. 16:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The youtube video in that page has been removed for copyright infringement. Try playing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPexPgOO0so here is the official. TbhotchTalk C. 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Will be whitelisted or not, because I need to remove pages from my watchlist. TbhotchTalk C. 02:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 Not done, unreliable source and/or copyvio. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I disagree. There's no copyvio, and the information is reliable. It's the only source we have found that gives the information that the JabbaWockeeZ appear in the music video. The text isn't a copyright violation and the video that was a copyright violation is gone. AnemoneProjectors 01:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

CozyCot.com

The article about CozyCot had a history of repeated creation and deletion, now its creation is permitted, after establishing the notability and undergoing various reviews. Relevant discussions:

This request comes after being deferred from the meta whitelist request.

Gatyonrew (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

www3.telus.net/findNchoose/smallenginerepair.html

Please whitelist:

  • www3.telus.net/findNchoose/smallenginerepair.html

This website would compliment your small engine repair page, by helping people locate additional small engine repair information. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.148.18 (talk) 05:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

All the information provided is tried and true, as I have myself used all these procedures to repair engines. Google, Bing, and Yahoo have all rated this site (small engine repair) search on their search engines, within the first three pages of search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.159.131 (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That the page shows up so high in Google, Bing and Yahoo shows that it a) can be found (and Wikipedia is not necessary for that!), and b) that the owners of the site likely have done a good job of search engine optimisation. Wikipedia's goal, however, is not to be a linkfarm or an internet directory. Does not provide, as Stifle said, a unique resource beyond our article, and therefore no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time and your honest opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.42.226 (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

french-league-history.co.cc

I would like to include the link to french-league-history.co.cc/french-league.php?season=1932-1933&week_count=1&league=Ligue+1 in the article en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_football_Division_1_1932–33 . That page has detailed information of each week from the 1932-33 season. Please whitelist the domain french-league-history.co.cc.

--Kostikberman (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

www.geo-enviro.co.cc/2009/11/carlin-type-gold-deposits-in-nevada.html

Please allow link to this widely-cited Economic geology journal article. I'll add it to the Carlin–type gold deposit article as an external link. Nice recent review article, otherwise unavailable online. Annoying website, but full text. See Google Scholar search for cites. Pete Tillman 22:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC), Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)

The Meryl Streep Forum

Please whitelist the following specific page:

  • www.merylstreep.freeforums.org


Wanted to add it to the external links to Meryl Streep's article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.90.40.121 (talk • contribs)

Fails the external links guideline by miles, especially WP:ELNO. no Declined --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

www.iwgc.freeforums.org/index.php

iwgc.freeforums.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

Page to be added to: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Woods_PGA_Tour_11

I would like an Admin to whitelist my site. It is a fansite that offers help and support to players of TW PGA Tour Golf versions 10 & 11 for the Wii. We feel that it would be beneficial to users who come across this wiki page to know that there is additional help for them with this game. We are not affiliated with FreeForums.org, they only provide us with the web space for our forum. Thank You. Joecool1228 (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)joecool1228

 Not done Per WP:EL, we generally don't whitelist fansites unless they are official. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting since the other support site that is listed on that page, not the official EA site, contains a link to us in it's useful links section. Additionally, the owner of that site is also an active member of our site. The other site could be considered a fansite as well and yet he is listed. Hmmm...I would like to make a second request for reconsideration. Joecool1228 13:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Voobly.com

Current blacklist request link: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Voobly.com

As an active gamer of X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter and X-Wing Alliance, I can personally attest to the fact that the Errant Venture is no longer being used as the primary location for match hosting. Further proof of at least the use of the Voobly client can be found at the Battlestats competition site in one of our recent XWA competition pages: http://www.battlestats.com/events/?3681 . I would like to see Voobly.com removed from the blacklist, with appropriate watch/control on how the references and website links are being used. - RS HeavyD (talk) 03:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to see the removal of voobly.com from the blacklist. I was (still am!) a keen AOE II player myself, and when Microsoft shut down MSN zone I in fact setup a website of my own with some friends to develop a client for online play. After several months of getting constantly attacked and put out as spammers by 'rival' websites and other delinquents who just happened to be attracted by these game sites, I decided just to close the site down and halted client development. One of the tactics used aganst us was to spam links on other sites to get us blacklisted. It is unfortunate that gamer sites attract a lot of juvenile delinquents and others that behave in this way but it is rather harsh to punish or blacklist genuine developers (and their sites) because of the actions of persons unrelated to the site or the developers, and who usually have ulterior motives for having the site blacklisted. The costs of taking legal action, and the complexities involved in trying to stop such people are virtually prohibitive for most companies never mind a small developer trying to establish a genuine site. I know some of the people at Voobly and these guys are definitely not spammers, it is most likely that they are suffering a similar situation as that which I personally experienced with my own site (which I now redirect to voobly incidentally!). I only discovered voobly was on the blacklist when I tried to update my own personal page to reflect that I am a keen AOE II player and mention that I play at voobly, and it would not accept the link. This is rather sad to see.

Chrissyboi (talk) 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As a member of the staff on voobly.com I can tell you we should not be blacklisted for spam. Other gaming websites similar to ours are allowed to post their links on wikipedia so we should be able to. Voobly.com is a gaming website that took over a lot of the games from the msn gaming zone when it shut down. We have anywhere from 1000 - 3000 players online and playing at any given time. We need to post the voobly.com link our our games wiki pages so people know where to go when they search for a specific game. Please consider unblocking this as 3000 players would want it unblocked. Thanks you for your time.

Some wiki pages that would benefit from this white-list addition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Ants
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires_II:_The_Age_of_Kings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires_II:_The_Conquerors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midtown_Madness_2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six:_Rogue_Spear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six
And countless others
- +dAwGy

  •  Denied. Request is clearly to promote a gaming website and does not bring any benefit to Wikipedia. If other websites are allegedly spamming links on our site this is a reason to blacklist those links, rather than to whitelist this one. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/x-5766-NY-New-Media-Events-Examiner~y2009m4d5-The-new-economy-presents-film-festivals-the-opportunity-to-become-content-providers

Hello all. I know that the examiner.com is blacklisted, perhaps with good reason, but this particular article from The Washington Examiner will be of use to a future page for AmericaFreeTV, which I am working out in my sandbox at the moment: User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for AmericaFreeTV. Please consider whitelisting this specific URL, as it contains an important announcement about a partnership with the Boulder International Film Festival that I would like to use. Thank you.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

dbka.freeforums.org

Please whitelist this link:

  • dbka.freeforums.org

Want to put as external link on page Global Operations, old game with shrinking but dedicated community, and this link is for one of it's community's remaining, active forums. Goes along with other useful community links on that page.

Also, please do the same with this one:

  • www.globalops.co.cc

Same reason, purpose, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.Vikram (talk • contribs) 16:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

intima.intimal.co.cc

Request: Whitelist website at intima.intimal.co.cc
Article : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INTI_International_University_College
Reason : This website an official student government website. This website also contained update information about student government stuffs. --Melicaster (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

www.ehow.com/how_2100155_scull.html.

Please whitelist this page: www.ehow.com/how_2100155_scull.html.

I planned to use it as an external reference on Sculling. As a sculler who has read this entire ehow.com page, I can attest to the fact that all the information it contains in accurate and could be useful to many other Wikipedia articles about crew or rowing in general.

Sincerely, Mosemamenti (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

it's not a reliable source though. Sometimes information that is correct can be found in non-reliable sources but we still can't use them. This is not necessarily a "no" answer; Ive never worked with this list and I just am answering so that the question doesnt go ignored/. —Soap— 23:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
How is this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 Denied due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com

To white list the following page www.examiner.com/x-27426-Volusia-County-Foreign-Policy-Examiner~y2010m7d28-Dodik-Kosovo-ruling-changes-everything for Reactions to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence in line with a verbatim quote for the person in question (Dodik, who has quotes on the page, but he said more that is relevant to the repercussions of the ruling). His quote that "'we want at present to clearly establish our rights so as to be able to act in any future situation the way the Albanians act now.'" is relevant because it shows the most obvious repercussions/controversy behind the ruling (which is why the reactions page exists in the same place). It is this such controversy that made ITN-worthy. The relevant quote is not way-off base and liable to be edited without oversight, because a quick glance at the wikipedia article mentioned will show similiar words have been mentioned by the same person/grouping. Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How about [1]? MER-C 06:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 Denied, not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

stargazing.suite101.com/

1. Please whitelist this source of reference

2.

While editing tahiti, some info added used info on this site for reference. Despite the ads, this seems to be a valid page. Additional pages in this edit are Sirius, Hawaii, Arcturus, Samoa and Spica.

3.

stargazing.suite101.com/article.cfm/steering-by-the-stars--polynesian-star-paths

Abacatabacaxi (talk) 06:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

www.nkavvadias.co.cc/

Article that would benefit: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/SimpCon

Wanted link: www.nkavvadias.co.cc/publications/kavvadias_vlsisoc08.pdf


trygvis (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

ritualabuse.us

I tried to include a link to ritualabuse.us's complaint about how it had been blacklisted by Wikipedia in my User page. Their complaint is, of course, blacklisted.

I believe it would greatly enhance my User page to be able to reference ritualabuse.us's complaint about blacklisting, as an example of how Wikipedia replicates mainstream disinformation. Jeremystalked talk 23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't generally whitelist URLs unless they are a benefit to the encyclopedia, which links in userspace are not. You can still include a text URL on your userpage so long as it isn't an active link, similar to how the text URLs on this talk page work. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 Not done Stifle (talk) 09:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Carlo Scevola & Partners

Please whitelist:

  • www.carloscevola.com

Please remove the spam rating on the website www.carloscevola.com. Carlo Scevola & Partners is a well respected fiduciary company headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, with branches in six continents. Carlo (the founder) actually wrote most of the content on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_company and it would be nice to be able to link to his website.

Carlo's book, the offshore jurisdiction guide, is titled "Carlo Scevola, Offshore Jurisdictions Guide", and is referenced at the bottom of the aforementioned Wikipedia page. I would like to link to the actual book (www.carloscevola.com/offshore/book/book.php) instead of a page on Wikipedia that does not have any relevant information about said book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781605944333. This book is based on jurisdiction guide which is helpful for Wikipedian's and also has informative content for encyclopedia.

--Imdanielmario (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Daniel MarioImdanielmario (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

  • To request removal of an entire site from the blacklist, you need this page. If you are requesting that one or a few links from a blacklisted site be permitted, please specify which ones. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that this was cross wiki added by, probably indeed, the owner of the site. Wikipedia is NOT the place to promote a business (as was pointed out to the user). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Carlo Scevola & Partners is a fiduciary company (law firm) headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, with branches in six continents.

They wanted to get some online exposure, and they decided to outsource their online marketing to an online marketing firm. I don't have the name of the firm, but could find out. The firm that they outsourced to, posted the original wikipedia links that got them banned.

I'm not sure how we can prove that Carlo didn't do this posting. Perhaps by the IPs that were used for the original wikipedia linking? Let me know. Thanks! In any case, it would be nice if we could whitelist this one URL: www.carloscevola.com/offshore/book/book.php

As this book is mentioned in wikipedia and we think it makes sense to link to the URL instead of a wiki stub page that doesn't have any info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imdanielmario (talk • contribs) 21:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

'The firm that they outsourced to', so the responsibility is still with the company that did the outsourcing. Law of unintended consequences?
(Most) books have an ISBN, if you add that, Wikipedia automagically links it to its built in Special:Booksources. That should then link on to the book whereever it can be found. I think that is enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 Not done, can't see any compelling reason to link to this page. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com #293905287298657

Please add following link, as to credible source and needed for addition to page on musical artist.

www.examiner.com/events-in-los-angeles/shine-on-2-hollywood-music-showcase-the-hottest-event-of-the-summer-benefits-hope-4-children

The specific page will add to content for musical artist that are notable and have wiki pages.

Andrewcurryla (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Andrewcurryla

This request was added in the wrong section; it is  Denied as examiner.com is not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

hosur.hosuronline.com

Please whitelist this link or atleast only one page of that website "hosur.hosuronline.com/aboutHosur.asp" as I want to add it to the article about Hosur. The content in this website is very much useful related to the specified article Akilash (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Does not meet reliable sources guidelines; owner of site engaged in spamming campaign, and following blacklisting, a harassment campaign. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
There are lots of images and historic references on that page. Humble question - I too read on the page that "Not to be used in any wiki articles" but still; In what way the behaviour of the site owner get involves in labelling it as a spam site when the link will be useful to all?Akilash (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
When a site owner aggressively spams the link (using a dynamic IP range), the link gets blacklisted. Period. As I've already said, it doesn't meet reliable sources guidelines either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You are more experienced than me in judging about the site, so I drop the proposal... still if you can consider once as a special case for this URL alone it will be better. Akilash (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Reference from R. T. Trall

Required for reference - [1] for Allopathic medicine DiptanshuTalk 10:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

These are pieces from R. T. Trall, "The True Healing Art". Available in other places, e.g. in print. No need to link here. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

www.easeus.com

I need this reference in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disk_imaging_software. Please whitelist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkbreitl (talk • contribs) 10:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The domain was quite aggresively added by socks, and I would strongly suggest not to whitelist the whole domain. Do you need the mainpage, the whole domain, or do you have a specific page that you need? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
No response => no Declined MER-C 02:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

amitbhawani.com/career/best-schools-in-nagapattinam-district/

Please white list just the above page as it refers to an important reference to the top 10 School in a specified area. The information is a useful reference to the wiki site: Aiyas Matriculation Higher Secondary School.

Thank you. Bariuk (talk) 00:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. This appears to be a self-published blog, one person's opinion with no methodology disclosed for the ranking. As such it wouldn't qualify as a reliable source, so there shouldn't be a need to include it in any article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

niralimagazine.com

Please whitelist Nirali Magazine as it contains an early interview with M.I.A. that would then be able to be retrieved directly on wiki. It's a reliable third party source. It was present for a few years before being blocked. It is used as a reference twice in the article, and is a useful resource on the articles M.I.A. and Luella Bartley.Lifebonzza (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Utkarsh Shetty

Please whitelist Utkarsh Shetty : Official website its an official website of indian national racing driver utkarsh shetty.Its an official webpage with news and updates about the racing career of Utkarsh Shetty.It is served on blogger server.Its an official website of the racing driver like the official websites of Karun Chandhok , narain karthikeyan and/or armaan ebrahim to name a few.Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utkarshkks (talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please state what website you want whitelisted (just leave out the http:// from the front and it will save here just fine. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

associatedcontent.com/article/206352/why_david_halberstams_the_reckoning.html?cat=4

Please white list the above page as I am created a stab about the book 'The Reckoning' (1986) by David Halberstam. The above page is referred to in a footnote of the stab.--North wiki (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

squidoo.com/all-things-finno-ugrian

Why my site should be whitelisted: I am requesting that only this page be whitelisted: www.squidoo.com/all-things-finno-ugrian, because I intended it to be an educational resource about the various nationalities known as the "Finno-Ugrian" or "Uralic" peoples. I wrote it in as informative, positive and unbiased manner as I possibly could. I hope that I won't be blacklisted because of the spamming activities of some Squidoo members. Which articles would benefit from whitelisting my site: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_peoples, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finno-Ugric_languages, and any associated Wikipedia articles related to this subject matter. Metsamies (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

gCaptain.com

Why my site should be whitelisted: gCaptain is a blog and media site for the maritime industry. It had been linked to by wikipedia many times due to the news stories our bloggers where able to break before traditional media. This is due to the fact that all our bloggers are sailors working on merchant ships at sea. I am not a wikipedia expert and I am not sure why the site was blacklisted in the first place but I do appologize if anyone submitted bad links on our behalf. I am confident that all the links to the site prior to the beginning of this year where valid and added value to the discussions. Which articles would benefit from whitelisting my site: All articles. --Gcaptain (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

no Declined We rarely, if ever, whitelist at the request of site owners. There is a long history of spamming of gcaptain links. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

James, we are a legitimate site with a lot of users passionate about our industry, I apologize if some of them went overboard with links. As a site owner myself I understand the importance and difficulty of keeping spammers at bay but I list my personal email and phone number on our website, if someone had just contacted me I could have personally removed the links and alerted our readers to obey the rules.

The [2] banning of JamProject-LA.com was declined for this very reason shortly after we where added to the list. The decline states "I see that none have received warnings to date. We don't blacklist unless the spammer has received and ignored multiple warnings. Blacklisting is a draconian last step we take to stop spam; it potentially has implications beyond Wikimedia since our blacklist is referred to by other web sites when compiling their own blacklists." Like Jamproject, we received no recent warnings and did not even know about this list until we where alerted to it by one of our blog readers.

I also apologize if I am taking the wrong tactic by requesting the whitelist, all I would like is to be removed off the blacklist. I'm trying to get myself quickly up to speed on wikipedia policy and procedure but, as I am sure you can remember from your early days on this site, this is a challenge. Any help would be greatly appreciated.--Gcaptain (talk) 04:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I came here after a remark on my talkpage. GCaptain. Your reasoning starts with 'gCaptain is a blog ...'. Blogs fail our verifiability policy, anyone can write anything on a blog, and such references are hence to be used with extreme care. Secondly, blogs fail our external links guideline, they are often, or generally, not suitable as an external link. You were warned for that, and I see at least 3 IPs being warned for adding these links. It may be that you don't understand how things work here, but the big orange 'you have new messages', and I think that the messages are clear.
Comparing yourself to another site, well, JamProject-LA.com did not get any warnings, and maybe the spamming stopped .. you did get warnings, or your users. If there is no response to that, and spamming continues, then blacklisting is the only solution (and this was on User:XLinkBot before blacklisting, but that did not stop the spamming either). And surely, there are no recent warnings, as the site is blacklisted .. it can not be added anymore.
I am sorry, generally this site is not suitable as a link on Wikipedia, I would suggest you start contributing content to our encyclopedia, and learn about our ways. Be sure to use proper references. And when you need the blog as a reference, you can suggest the specific link here for whitelisting. Still, note the existence of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable Sources and Wikipedia:External links .. all of which this site likely to fail, and where, I am afraid, generally there will be better references to attribute the text on Wikipedia. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, you really don't seem to get it. Your site is blacklisted, due to excessive promotion of it. It is unsuitable, it was spammed, and after XLinkBot it was blacklisted. You were warned for that, several IPs were warned about that, I presume you read WP:SPAM by now. You should know that promotion here is not wanted.
Now, you first post this on my talkpage, signing as Gcaptain, and revealing yourself to be John Konrad. After my answer, you reply, as an IP, with this, which shows that on that IP you, GCaptain AKA John Konrad use that IP. Going through the edits of the IP, I see this edit (just a couple of days ago), where you add a book which you wrote yourself. Stop your self promotion, strictly follow our conflict of interest guideline, take it to the talkpages, you really are close to being blocked on this site. And consider this request now as no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Just as a note, this IP was, before blacklisting, also involved in additions of gcaptain.com; see e.g. this diff where the link was added to the top of the external links sections. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
A further indication is that this whitelist request was made here and on four user talk pages (User talk:A. B. User talk:Beetstra, User talk:Haus, User talk:MER-C). Johnuniq (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

":A further indication is that this whitelist request was made here and on four user talk pages" As further indication of what?

Yes I have added links before, no I have not received any warnings. The links I added because I believed they added value to the conversation, none where off topic, none where beyond my expertise as a ship captain and none came without a high level of research and editing by the part of our staff. Even in hindsight I can not find links to gCaptain that are not relevant and appropriate. But I am not arguing the links, I do "get it" and further I do apologize for not having "got it" before.

Yes I added the link on David Hirshey's wikipedia page because the book is relevant to his profile. He is my editor and the book meets all wikipedia guidelines for relevant sources. Further you may ask David himself if the addition was ok. I think that by removing my entry to David's biography you are removing new and relevant information that people viewing that page would want to know.

A big question here seems to be your relevant sources policy. But this policy clearly states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. " gCaptain certainly applies here, which is a collection of our blog posts expanded, is being published by a credible source, HarperCollins, further I have written for other credible sources in the industry including Lloyds List, Fairplay, Maritime Executive and have been quoted in many of the large publications including, recently, being noted as an expert in my field by the NY Times, Wall Street Journal and NPR. gCaptain itself has been quoted by numerous media outlets.

The bottom line is I visited your talk pages to ask for help. I am confused by the matter in which a blacklist occurs, I'm confused why we never received notification, and I need your help. Please consider forgiving us for our ignorance, which I admit is no excuse, and offer us a second chance. Please lead us down the proper path here as I assure you we, and our readers, made these mistakes with no intent to do harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.46.254.146 (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Sorry I forgot to sign in. --Gcaptain (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

no Declined As Beetstra has made abundantly clear in the above post, plenty of warnings were given to more than one account (including yours). Case-by-case whitelisting requests made by established editors without conflict-of-interest issues will be considered. Consider the matter closed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Accepted and thank you for the consideration. To avoid further trouble, if possible, please point me to the warnings given on my account so I am sure to receive them in the future - the last one I see was submitted in 2007. --Gcaptain (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

one,two,three. Similar warnings were posted on other single purpose accounts spamming the links. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Gcaptain, here are 3 earlier spam discussions:

I wish I had seen this earlier but that is water under the bridge, I see the discussions now and they are very straight forward.

If anyone notices any other infractions please inform us, via the contact us page on our site for an immediate response, or via gcaptain's talk page here, which I promise to start monitoring. I feel contact is important because, as gCapt's founder, I can do a lot to teach my readers proper wiki etiquette, I can cross match IP's with my user list and ask our readers to stop, and I can have our editors monitor links on Wikipedia and inform notify your admins when someone has improperly linked to us.

That being said. I agree with and support the decision not to whitelist our site. We made mistakes, accept the consequences and promise to work hard to provide content that your editors will want to whitelist in the future. In short, I apologize for the infraction and appreciate your time in explaining it to me. -John--Gcaptain (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2010 page lists 9 accounts involved in spamming these links. I note that we missed some others at the time; here are 9 more:
  1. 69.148.52.55 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  2. 87.64.45.147 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  3. 207.114.130.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  4. 71.9.57.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  5. 70.88.192.89 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  6. 66.215.58.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  7. 219.78.42.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  8. 123.248.145.197 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  9. 71.142.225.50 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
As for warnings, here's a partial list; there are probably more accounts out there that also have warnings:
Other discussions:
I note that we missed a domain when blacklisting other gcaptain domains:
Typically, we do not whitelist individual pages or remove entire domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
Should you find yourself penalized in any search engine rankings and you believe that to be a result of blacklisting here, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. We do not have any arrangements with any of the search engine companies; if they're using our blacklist it's purely on their own initiative.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Please note that all notifications of spam allegations will be sent to the talk page of the user who added the links. We have huge amounts of spamming on the site and are unable to maintain a database of special arrangements such as "if X site is spammed, contact user Y or use the contact page of Z website". Stifle (talk) 10:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Stifle, I do understand that problem but there is a "contact us" link on our homepage that links to a simple webform. Could a quick notice, asking for our help to eliminate spam, not been submitted there? --Gcaptain (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Gcaptain, do you really expect us, volunteers on this project, to go to every website spammed, and ask the owner to stop? You've had enough messages when you came here (warnings on the 17th of June, edits at 22nd of June have given you the orange banner, several edits follow, but then we come to edits at 24th of October (by then you should have read the messages on your talkpage), warning at 24th of October, followed by edits on the 1st of November, which, again, should have given you the banner. But you proceeded. And that is only on your account, I've not analysed the many IPs, some of which are clearly used by you. Gcaptain, you're not blocked, go edit Wikipedia, add content. Forget about linking to your blog for now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn, Invalid, Malformed or Otherwise Past Relevance

uvouch.com

The website, amongst others, is discussed as part of the exposition of video aggregation methods in the Video aggregator article. All other video aggregators discussed in the article have a link to their site in the article which seems appropriate as many do not have Wikipedia articles and this is otherwise useful for readers. The aggregators chosen for discussion in the article were selected for their mentions in the article's sources, and is in no way arbitrary (and therefore possibly promotional). So I am asking for an exception to the black list for uvouch.com for this article. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the other links and converted the article to a redirect, but the links were restored. I explained the reasons on the article talk page - providing links for sites that fail to meet WP:WEB guidelines meets the threshold for linkspam. Those links should be re-removed. The two secondary sources mentioned in the article are arbitrary lists by the authors of those two articles, not establishing any clear criteria other than personal preference of those two authors (who each list different sites). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The entire ariticle was deleted, not just the links, an article based on reliable sources.
WP:WEB refers to the notability of a website, not whether the website can be mentioned in an article or have an external link. Websites can be discussed like anything else, as they are discussed in reliable sources.
The sources are not mere lists nor are they arbitrary. The PCWorld mag source is not arbitray, it is the magazine's selection of most useful websites, a "best of the web" article. The specific page cited is the page for video aggregation sites. And there is a succinct review of each website, not just a list. The Mashable source is a review (not a list) of newer video aggregators. While the reviewer is not saying they are the best, they are discussed for their usefulness and innovation. Further, the selection is likely not arbitrary anyway, as the authors of these articles are not amateurs, but professional journalists specializing in the internet. Diderot's dreams (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I've already responded at Talk:Video aggregator to both counter arguments. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Me too, please see that discussion. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw the request. The external link is no longer needed because, as the article is now, a specific mention of Uvouch is not needed or included. There is a site traffic table and an external link to a list of video aggregators; more specific mentions like Uvouch would be overkill. Diderot's dreams (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn by original nominator. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/870/477/005/

Please whitelist the particular petition page. The whole domain may well be outside Wikipedia's policies, but this particular case concerns part of an ancient Greek monument, Diolkos, which is being continuously washed away by waves of seawater while officials falsely claim to be protecting it. The petition page itself is mentioned in the article (Diolkos#Modern_exploration) and I think that the whole struggle to save the monument is part of the present history of the monument and therefore useful as a reference in Wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 12:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The petition itself is there a direct source (that is the big problem ..). Surely, if the petition is important enough, it will have been covered in independent media, which report on its existence, notability and results? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I will try to locate any such secondary sources then. Thank you Beetstra.Hoverfish Talk 00:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Closed as withdrawn. MER-C 00:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn by nominator. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Spam whitelist proposal

A proposal to provide a standardized form when requesting additions to the spam whitelist is at WP:VPR#Change of format for MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. Your comments are welcome. MER-C 11:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ R. T. Trall (speech given in 1862) (Reprinted 1880). The True Healing Art: Or, Hygienic vs. Drug Medication,. New York: Fowler & Wells, Publishers. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/09&oldid=1108747320"