MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/03

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

Please check the site before to say no.

hometown.aol.de/tmirabeau/TA_11C.html

hometown.aol.de is blocked. Could this particular personal site be unblocked as it's the only site I've come across that has info about rare Citroen cars, and I'd like to cite it as a source. Adrian Robson 17:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read this page, but from the context and apearences it seems to be ok. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - editor is inactive and request has gone stale. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An ice hockey fan site

I wanted to edit the article on HC Pardubice, a Czech ice hockey team, but the spam filter denied me to do so, because somebody had included an external link www.mujweb.cz/Sport/hcpardubice/ . However, it links the article to a fan site of the team, which is relevant for the article and so I believe it should stay. Therefore I ask you to include this particular site in the whitelist. Jan.Kamenicek 01:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't evaluate this request at this time... company firewall blocks the page. I'll check it out latter when I get home. (mental note to self...) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - dead link. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

chernobrov. and torsionfraud.narod.ru

Appears that narod.ru is now blacklisted due to spamming. Article on Vadim Chernobrov points to external links, a few to his own website on chernobrov.narod.ru (albeit in Russian). The other points to criticisms of his work on torsionfraud.narod.ru. There is no spam evident there. Please investigate and add the domains. Chikinsawsage 04:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really evaluate these pages. I don't speak Russian and neither would load for me just now. I'll try again latter. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you are at the right wiki? —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - request is stale and editor is inactive. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xoomer.alice.it/kxqjfe/dialetweb/main.htm

This links to an Italian-Bergamasque dictionary. It is a useful resource for Eastern Lombard dialect. There are not so many on-line resources for Bergamasque vocabularies and this is quite complete and interesting. It is also useful if one wants to compare Bergamasque with Brescian, this last being used as reference variety in the examples in the Eastern Lombard article. Ninonino 09:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what article would this link be of use on? —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern State University

Entry for editing this site is blocked for some reason. Please remove the barrier.

Billy Hathorn 23:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the URL for the page? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - Not enough information has been provided. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yelena Zamolodchikova

I need to add the following link for the gymnast Elena Zamolodchikova: freehost26.websamba.com/Zamtastic

It contains many infos, news and results about this gymnast that I added in this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Zamolodchikova

So I think it is correct to add this website to the sources for that wikipedia page. The main news are here: freehost26.websamba.com/Zamtastic/zamtastic.asp?go=2005 freehost26.websamba.com/Zamtastic/zamtastic.asp?go=2006 but there are usefull informations about this gymnast all over that website.

thanx Ale72 11:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Ale72[reply]


Can I have a reply? That website is still in the black list! Ale72 11:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Ale72[reply]

I'm trying to clear the blacklist now... I'll get to it in the next few days. Sorry for the delay. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A minor note, the site that is actually on the blacklist is websamba.com. So I'm assuming this is a subdomain of this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that website is a subdomain of websamba.com. I hope this is not a problem. The best thing would be to clear the blacklist only for that subdomain (freehost26.websamba.com/Zamtastic) keeping banned the websamba server. I mean that on websamba there can be some websites that deserve to stay in the blacklist, but this subdomain is related to the wikipedia page so it should stay out of the blacklist. Ale72

Well I notice this is an "Unofficial website". Is there any relevent details here that we can use? Right now all I see is a home page saying that she was injured for 3 months, and that they wish her well... not exactly useful as a source or anything. I apologize for the delays in my replies, but we are slowly clearing this backlog... its down to 28 sections! —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like there are some interviews and picture gallery's on the page that might be usable as a source. I'm inclined to add this one, but I'm not sure. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an "Unofficial website" since she doesn't have any official website,but it's the best sourse available on the web. There are all the details available, that are picture galleries about all the competitions she goes, interviews, videos and detailed reports about all she does each year: see freehost26.websamba.com/Zamtastic/zamtastic.asp?go=2005 for the 2005 and freehost26.websamba.com/Zamtastic/zamtastic.asp?go=2005 for the 2006. The only thing is that there are no real news since christmas, but that only because the gymnastic season is stopped in january and february (major competitions will start in the middle of march). Anyway that website is weekly updated (you can see the updates here: freehost26.websamba.com/Zamtastic/zamtastic.asp?go=about&doc=upd) Ale72

Are the other editors of the article ok with adding this link? —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me of course... :-p Ale72

hometown.aol.de/Stojanaurel/bluemoon.htm

This link should be Whitelisted: hometown.aol.de/Stojanaurel/bluemoon.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.19.221.74 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: see User:Naconkantari/sbl. The m:Spam blacklist listing that includes the hometown.aol.de domain notes:
--A. B. (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What article do you intend to use the link in? —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www . w9rh . org/Documents/MRACHistory2006.pdf

Unblock this please it is legitimately listed in a citeweb. It worked fine earlier today, but when editing the page later the block comes up. I don't understand why the page is listed at all, but since Dealing with the block list page requires a series of steps includign singing up with a username and password, I am asking this file be whitelisted. Anonym1ty 22:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me on what article this is for? —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was fixed already thank you. Just FYI the article was South Jersey Radio Association. This can be closed out. But thanks for the follow up Anonym1ty 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is  Not done as it was fixed by other means other then this list. Cheers! —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog.myspace.com/101566922

This page, created and maintained by Peter Christopherson, was previously used as a source for that article. Not having the ability to use this as a source hurts the strength of the article as it is written, and I wouldn't be surprised if it would be useful for future edits. --Jackhorkheimer 01:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the funny way myspace does things we will need the specific links your planning on using as sources so we can whitelist them. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You also might want to consider using proper citations, for instructions on how to get started with that see WP:CITE. Do try to make sure that you use reliable sources. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "specific link" do you mean the specific blog post or a different link to the blog? I was hoping to be able to use the entire blog, since I imagine there might be other useful information for primary source citations, but I guess it won't be too bad doing one request for each link (so long as this page doesn't get backlogged again). --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I let jack know we were talking about his request. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sloche Brand Candy Site

I propose that the following site should be allowed on the Whitelist: bonbonsloche.awardspace.com (preceded by http://). I believe that visitors to the related Wikipedia article might benefit from and enjoy seeing actual examples of the candies. The site includes actual pictures of the candy packages - this is useful as merely stating in the Wikipedia article that the candy packaging is weird and was actually in one case banned, piques curiosity and visitors might like to see what the actual packages look like. These packages are no longer available for sale in Quebec so the bonbonsloche.awardspace.com website is the only place they can now be seen. Signed: 66.36.128.112 03:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC) (4 tildes)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.36.128.112 (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So perhaps upload a few of the images as free images (if possible) or if not, upload them as fairuse, for articles that need the images. What articles is this needed in anyway? —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to grant this request. Even if we get permission to upload the photos to wikipedia we would needed to get it white listed to add source information to the picture pages. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, consider this  Done. —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, when you do add the link, please use the version without frames, the frames really mucked up my browser (FF2). Thanks —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ency. Drama.

I attempted to post a link to this site in the Culture jamming article. I thought that it seemed a very good example of the subject, as it provided satire and opposing views using the same format as that of the things being jammed. I was directed to a spam policy statement that had a links to further information. I read through a great deal of the material that related to the site in question, and see that there is great controversy with links to the site. Controversy is the purpose of cultural jamming. The article on cultural jamming will never be considered comprehensive as long as prime examples are prohibited from being discussed. Partial comphrensiveness does not exist, a body of work IS comprehensive or it IS NOT. Attacks are to be expected whenever a person or organization maintains a public profile, especially when that organization is widely known for urging participation from anyone who is able to access the internets. People who partake of public activities should expect that satire is part of public life, especially those who have accepted the public domain contribution policy. Surely there is a better way to deal with the problem than pretending that it does not exist. Sweeping a problem under the rug, especially a problem as hot as this one, will usually result with your house burning down.

My specific request is that the link, or some type of reference to the site in question, be allowed specifically for the culture jamming article. I do not care about the other articles and am not asking that the blacklist be completely listed. Fastplanet 07:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a source Encyclopedia Dramatica does not qualify as reliable. As an example of "cultural jamming" the site is non-notable. As a link the website fails our external link guidelines in five or six different ways.
Comprehensiveness? Perhapses I should refer you to the policy on what wikipedia is not.
I'm not even going to get into the ArbCom ban on any external link to the site...
For now, consider this request  Not done. This is not the venue to accomplish what your looking to accomplish. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neosmut.com

Trying to add link to www.neosmut.com - it is a paintball team and I am trying to add it [link] to the Scenario Paintball Team post. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.51.14.44 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 23 February 2007.

(moved) Why would the article benefit from this link? Or is this a case that the linked-to website will benefit more then wikipedia? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done due to lack of information. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a listing of scenario paintball teams and their websites. Adding our team to the listing only seeks to make the list more comprehensive.

www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/cinelist.html

Trying to make an unrelated edit to Movie projector, this page hits the spam blacklist because xs4all\.nl\/\~wichm was added to the blacklist on 12 Jan, apparently because wichm was guilty of wikispam. This link does look related to the topic to me, it seems to be a fairly comprehensive list of film projector types, and there are no similar links to comprehensive lists. Jhawkinson 10:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done on my next update. I don't think the list would really be a reliable source, but it seems to be a useful external link. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com

This site seems harmless, is not selling anything, has a very rich collection of artwork examples for famous and respected artists; the fact that the text is Portugese seems immaterial since all that viewers will want to do is look at the artworks. Additional comments from editors favoring unblocking can be found in the blacklist Talk]. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand why the site should not be available in all languages. Please unblock from all languages. --CliffC 17:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to edit Keith Haring, but am holding off because I'd have to drop this link to an extensive collection of his works to save the article – a net loss. --05:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have been blocked from editing 2 pages in the last 2 days on this - whats the problem. Illustrations are good. Johnbod 08:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the language of the site is immaterial. No-one was using that as an argument for blacklisting.
I'm looking into this further... It looks like the sites creator spammed the link across multiple language wikis using multiple IP addresses. Blacklisting was the only way to get it to stop.
I'd be willing to add a particular deeplink to the whitelist if you want, but I don't see any reason to white-list the entire page given it's history. For now I'm going to decline this request untill further information is provided.
CliffC, if you wish for it to be unblocked wikipedia-wide, please request that at meta, not here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He already did, see this. —— Eagle101 Need help? 18:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[undent] I have been wondering how to request something at meta, and now I find I've done so already. But my main and perhaps selfish concern is to get this site off the blacklist for the English Wikipedia, whatever that takes.

When I noticed these links being added I issued a friendly warning here, but later that day it had grown to this collection, several more of which I believe were reverted by another editor, but I'm guessing he then went to the user page to issue a warning,saw mine and left the rest alone.

I don't follow every artist, only about 20 or so, so I'm not aware of any user beyond the one listed above adding such links. I haven't the tools to look for others.

If you look at my past edits, you will see that I am an unlikely person to plead for the life of a spammer; however I am asking that the site be spared the blacklist, in at least the English Wikipedia, because of its exceptional value as an art resource. If you surveyed a few of the regular contributors to the art articles this link was added to, I believe they also would wish the links to remain. Take a look at oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com/search?q=matisse&x=76&y=7 as an example; there are several Matisse works shown there I have never seen before.

His links point to a different page for each artist, on the same site. Annoying as it might be to see so many links added pointing to one site, I'm hoping we can WP:AGF, this is an enthusiastic art lover who is justifiably proud of his site. Thanks for considering this. --CliffC 19:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep in mind adding links to a site that you own or are affiliated with can be seen as a conflict of interest. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done though if you can prove copyright ownership or suitable license and undertake not to add directly but to discuss on talk pages, I'll reconsider. -- Heligoland 01:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have pulled this item back from the archives temporarily to add my overdue comments. Firstly, perhaps my defense of the site did not make it sufficiently clear that I have absolutely no affiliation with the site or its owner; a casual reader might think I did, based on the above reference to WP:COI. I am merely an admirer of the site's collection. Indeed, if we strung up everyone here who had a WP:COI we would soon run out of trees. Secondly, I have spent most of my working life learning which levers to pull to get things done in various bureaucracies, and I don't care to learn which ones it takes here to "prove copyright ownership or suitable license". Yes, I know, WP:NOT a bureaucracy. It's unfortunate that none of the admins involved have recognized the value of the site – repeating something I said earlier, "If you surveyed a few of the regular contributors to the art articles this link was added to, I believe they also would wish the links to remain." It seems spiteful to blacklist a valuable collection (admittedly one only housed on a blog) to punish a spammer. That's all I have to say, now I'll leave the issue alone. I lose, but so does Wikipedia. --CliffC 16:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... I can accept the site might have a ton of value... but the point of the whitelist is not to undermine or override the blacklist. The whitelist is to turn the nuke that is the blacklist into a finely tuned tool. I'm more then happy to whitelist a series of useful deep-links if you want to provide a list... But if you want to de-blacklist the page, this is not the venue to have that discussion.
Blacklisting isn't done to punish, it is done to prevent further damage. Please try not do demean the entire anti-spam effort by attacking it like this. We can discuss this here like reasonable adults. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into this a little further it appears most (80-90%) of the images are in the public domain... however, some of the images (The Goat and the Flowers for example) are published recently enough to still be under copyright. The blog could probably qualify under a fair use claim however. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see a ray of sunshine here, thank you for the explanation, J.S. Apologies to all for letting my frustration show through. Would it make sense for me to copy this whole section over to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist as a request to remove the site from the blacklist? TIA for any advice. --CliffC 21:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gamesff.com

This website was added to the spamlist. I requested a remove, bit they sayed, that I should make a request to add the site to the whitelist instead.

The reason why I wanted this website to be removed form the spamlist was: I don't know abpout the other links to this page, but at least the one which was used at the wikipedia-article tetris www.gamesff.com/classic/tetris.html leads to a very good tetris clone which can be played online, so I don' thinkt its spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MrBurnns (talk • contribs) 12:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

 Not done Sorry, cross-wiki spam attack has lead this site to be banned on every wikipedia-related website. At the risk of assuming bad faith, is this your website? I notice this is your only edits here on wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not my website. I also have done othe redits on the english wikipedia, but this was before I registered. I also never used the IP-address 62.90.5.197. -MrBurnns 09:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wga.hu

This was unmotivated blacklisted. It's a famous webart gallery webpage with over 10 million visitors. I request it to become whitelisted again. There is art in there which is relevant to the Crown of Immortality article. Of course I wonder why this was site was blacklisted! --Roberth Edberg 19:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Unmotivated" it certainly isn't. The website was blacklisted because of cross-wiki spam. (See the blacklist for more info)
That article doesn't exist...However, Crown of Immortality does and that seems to be the article your talking about. It looks like it's currently being discussed at AFD. (AFD). I'd really rather see the AFD resolved before I whitelist any particular page on the domain.
That being said, I don't see any problem with the site itself... It looks to be entirely free, no advertising and contains wonderful images of classical art. Eagle, you were the one who blacklisted the page... can you provide some more information on this? Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article (Crown of Immortality) certainly won't be deleted. It's seems to be conspirative speculations which has caused it to be AFD tagged, but it will surely pass. The article just needs a better structure. However the argument about AFD should not affect the webart site, which is a really good website for art lovers. A good referens source! --Roberth Edberg 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restricted the size of the blacklist, it is now just \bwga\.hu\/html\/t\/tintoret instead of \bwga\.hu . This may or may not fix the problem in this instance, but the cross wiki spammer was only adding that small section of the site, and I did not notice that at the time of the original blacklisting. —— Eagle101 Need help? 23:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Roberth Edberg, does that let you use the links you need to use? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Thanx. --89.233.213.145 05:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - as this was just a problem with the blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nozomsite

Please I request adding (www.geocities.com/nozomsite) to the whitelist as it can be useful in such the follwing topics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIC16x84 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIC_microcontroller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_port

Thank you. (196.219.174.253 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please also see, this. Another admin needs to have a look see at this, as I cannot accept or refuse this request due to conflict of interest issues. In any case, this needs a few eyes other then my own ;) —— Eagle101 Need help? 00:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - site apears to fail WP:EL. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by fail!. The website is running.
It fails the external links guidelines. The site appears to copy content directly from [1], with extra added advertising. -- zzuuzz(talk) 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

anarkismo.net

This site is an international anarchist communist news site containing over 5,000 articles. I can see no reason for it to be blocked in particular as it contains online reproductions of many anarchist related articles not available elsewhere as well as news and historical pieces. Thia makes it useful to a large range of pages but in particular the ones that relate to anarchism.

Declaration of interest - I am one of the 15 or so editors of the Anarkismo.net site

AndrewFleming72 13:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just some added information the site was blacklisted due to cross wiki spam. (see here). As I did the original blacklisting I will leave it up to someone else to figure out if a whitelist is appropriate here or not. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thanks - The IP address of the spammer is Dutch, we have no editors in the Netherlands. I have also asked if any Anarkismo editors have been adding links to wikipedia, it turns out I am the only one who has (and as you'll see from my history this has I think been where they are relevent). I also note the same IP address was used to get nefac.net blacked, NEFAC is a north American anarchist organisation so likewise it is odd for someone in the Netherlands to do this especially with a range of non-English wiki pages as the target. My initial suspicion was that this was someone hostile to anarkismo.net being clever, this tends to re-enforce that opinion. This was why I requested white listing. AndrewFleming72 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Can you give us some examples of where that site specifically must be linked to? It was previously blacklisted for cross-wiki spam, and whitelisting is generally not done without a good reason. Veinor (talk to me) 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of existing links there is one on the Anarchism page (in the section on Platformism) linking to a the text of a 1926 pamphlet that is on Anarkismo. There are two in the external links section of the page on Platformism - this makes sense as Anarkismo is a global news hub for Platformist groups. A footnote in the critique section of the Anarcho-primitivism page did link to an article on Anarkismo but that footnote is now labelled '(deleted spam-filtered link)'. In terms of where people might find it useful to link that is an open question, Anarkismo has over 5,000 individual articles covering a large range of topics and regions. For instance I'm in Ireland and the site includes a number of detailed articles on Irish history as well as reproductions of texts from periods in Irish history back to the 1860's ( see http://www.anarkismo.net/index.php?topic=history&region=irelandbritain ). Someone editing an Irish history related page might find these relevent enough to use as a source. AndrewFleming72 13:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we prefer to white-list indivisual links and not entire domains - expecialy when spam is involved.
It would also be helpfull to give us a list of where you intend to use the link. It makes it easyer to decide if the site passes WP:EL or WP:RS. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up - I don't see that EN:wiki was part of the spam campaign and the site looks good enough that at least the conversation over weather or not it is a reliable source should be had. I'm very inclined to whitelist the domain or recommend the domain be taken off the blacklist in a week or so. What are your thoughts Eagle? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anarkismo.net is linked from Ethel MacDonald as a reference, specifically this page: http://www.XXXSPAMFILTERanarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3286 It really seems odd to blacklist anarkismo, and to request that each individual page referenced in wikipedia be whitelisted seems tedious, and a drag on the editing page. For instance, I was just trying to fix a spelling mistake on the Ethel MacDonald page, and now that can't be fixed without removing the anarkismo link! PvH 7:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.38.142.67 (talk • contribs) 5 March 2007.
Mmmm ok, I can remove it from the blacklist, but if we get spam again, we might have to just whitelist the domain here on this wiki, and hope the spammers don't strike here. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this has been resolved. I'm going to mark this as  Not done since it was fixed though removing the entry in the blacklist. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bharatatatparyanirnaya.122mb.com

It contains English Translation of Mahabhartatha one of the greatest epic of Hindu religions . It contains translation of Mahabhartata Tatparya Nirnaya composed by Madhvacharya one among greatest reformers during 12 and 13th centuries in South India. It is hard work and effort of translating 5000 verses to English. It does not contain any pirated material or abusive material..

Are these reasons sufficient to unblock it ?

If yes - THankyou Very Much If No - Thanks again.. I will not make any more efforts to explain it further.

216.9.243.103 18:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Harshala[reply]

122mb.com seems to be a free-website host. I could see why it was blacklisted. However, I wasn't able to track down the original request in the blacklist so I'm not sure what the reason was.
However, the page in question looks fine. It has no advertising and I don't see it pushing any particular agenda. However, I'm fairly ignorant of the subject so I could have missed something.
The only concern I have is weather or not it should be considered a reliable source. If the page's own stat counter and the fact that it's on a free web-host are indicators of anything, it indicates that the website doesn't receive the kind of traffic you would expect from an authoritative web page. I'm leaning towards listing this page, but it would be nice to have some more input from people who are more knowledgeable about the subject. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other sites that contain the same material? -- zzuuzz(talk) 18:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know... But thats not realy the deciding factor. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but probably of interest. -- zzuuzz(talk) 18:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you could check http://www.dvaita.org/sources/mbtn/ - where there is sanskrit original of the script

you can also check http://mahabharata-resources.org/mbtntrans/mbtntrans.html which essentially takes to the same website... I just wanted it to be listed on its own as well .. also add the page ud\nder reference for various Madhva sections on wikepedia 216.9.243.103 21:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)harshala —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.243.103 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

fisheaters.com

Help:Circle of stars

The article Circle of stars reports (when try to re-save), that fisheaters.com is blacklisted even if it's not in the article. How come? --Roberth Edberg 14:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Works fine for me. Try purging your cache? Veinor (talk to me) 15:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link was in a ref tag, [2] should not have saved. I have asked about this at meta. Article is now fixed, this request can probably be closed. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you can drop my entry here. --Roberth Edberg 20:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok,  Not done then. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tinyurl.com

Hi there. I'd like to request that http:// tinyurl.com / 253 (w/o the spaces;) is whitelisted, as I feel that The Book of Mozilla will benefit. As you may know already, TinyURL allows sites to be linked to by another means. Generally people use this to shorten large URLs to smaller (tiny) ones. In this case, I would like to use it to direct to about:mozilla Now, current wiki markup doesn't allow for about: links to be placed, and the Book of Mozilla's article I feel would benefit from a link to the page where the 'book' originally is. This would also allow Internet Explorer users to see if their about:mozilla is a bluescreen or blank etc. etc. the fun is endless. Now I can only guess why tinyurl has been blocked, but this provides a way for a direct redirect (if that makes any sense) from a reliable source that looks to be around for ages to be given. Finally, if you know of a way to link to about:mozilla without tinyurl, all the better. Please contact me through my talk page if you have a way to do this, or will/won't unblock this page. Thanks for listening ;)--[[user:xensyria|xensyria<sup>[[User talk:xensyria|T]]</sup>]] 22:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Tinyurl.com was blocked because it is a redirect website. It was used extensively as a way to bypass the blacklist. I'm not sure I feel confortable whitelisting any link from that website since things can be changed so easily. Also, you are better off using a screenshot and describing, in prose, how someone with the right browser can access the site. Not all browsers are able to see the page... Infact, the majority don't. So... yeah, a screeshot.
Oh, on a side note, this isn't the right section for this kind of request. Not a big deal, just a FYI for next time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reasons and patience, so sorry about putting the section in the wrong place (I hope that it's better here). Still, I think that if it could be included (and yes, the tinyurl workaround was a little unclean), a link to about:mozilla would be nice on the page.
Still, thanks again, and I accept your reasons fully.
--xensyriaT 21:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information on trade of Ryan Smyth

I wanted to post an external link that provides detail into the trade of Ryan Smyth to New York but the site is blacklisted It would contribute to the bio of Ryan Smyth

national-hockey-league-nhl.suite101.com/article.cfm/all_is_good_on_the_island —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bure pavel96 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

 Not done - I don't see how Shawn MacDonald is a reliable source as a 1 time contributer to Suite101 and I am very suspicions of new accounts that make whitelisting requests. It's very likly that that link fails WP:EL as well. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist request for Hellfire Club link page

Cypherpress 00:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC) Cypherpress freemasonrywatch.org/hellfire.html Hell-Fire Club, Masonic Deism, Dashwood, Franklin, and the Black Mass - a very well-researched, VERY reliable article about the Hellfire Club[reply]

Not that it's relevant or anything, but are you aware that the page has more google adverts then the google TOS says is permissible? That could get the account blocked and any income owed unpaid. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cypherpress 12:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Cypherpress I wasn't aware of that part - the ads on the page seem mostly innocuous though - the usual amateur web designer's desperate webring stuff. However if that's the reason, and notwithstanding that i think it really is a good, balanced piece, it's good enough for me. How come it wouldn't be relevant?[reply]

My meaning was that my comment was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It's just a point of interest to those who fight spam.
Onto the more relevant questions at hand: Who is the author of the essay? I see his name there, but who is he? Is he a notable scholar in the field of Masonic study? Basicly, does the website pass to the guidelines setforth in WP:RS. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cypherpress 10:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Cypherpress No idea - the piece does seem to have been published, in Gnosis magazine, of which I had not heard. (www.lumen.org and www.gnosis.org tell something about it). I have no time for gnostics or masonry and absolutely no desire to give madmen the oxygen of publicity, so I'm happy to drop it - it's just that a lot of rubbish is talked about the Hellfire club and this author does a lot to cut through it (while admittedly adding a little of his own...).[reply]

Whitelist request for Sri Sathya Sai Book Centre website link

Link for whitelist consideration: srisathyasaibookcentre.org.uk

Page to use the link on: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sathya_Sai_Baba

Why the link would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper:

The website in question serves two functions:

a. It represents the Sri Sathaya Sai Book Centre (SSSBC), based in London - the only Sri Sathya Sai Book Shop or Centre in Europe with its own premises. The Book Centre also ships Sathya Sai books to parties all over the world; with books in various ethnic languages, the Book Centre is the only such provider in the West that stocks Sathya Sai books in Hindi, Gujarati and Chinese.

b. It provides a wealth of information and resources about Sri Sathya Sai Baba, his life and his message. This information complements the Wikipedia resource as it provides devotees with direction and help, especially with regard to visiting the Ashram. See for example: srisathyasaibookcentre.org.uk/ashram-going-to-the-ashram1.php

The reasons given for blacklisting this website are that:

1. It is not an official Sri Sathya Sai website 2. It is not an International Sri Sathya Sai website 3. It a commercial entity

In dealing with each, we hope to show that that the SSSBC website is a valuable resource to Wikipedia users and should be reinstated in the stated Wikipedia page

1. The SSSBC is entirely owned by the Sri Sathya Sai UK Trust (SSUT), which is the official charity of the Sri Sathya Sai UK Organisation, and recognised by the Charity Commission. The website in question represents the SSSBC and therefore represents an official Sri Sathya Sai body under the auspices of the Sri Sathya Sai Seva Organisation in India.

2. Whilst the SSSBC is located in London, it provides resources to interested parties all over the world. However, in order to accommodate the stated objection, a 'Regional' section of the stated Wikipedia page was set up. However, it seems this change did not satisfy the stated objections.

3. The SSSBC is owned by the SSUT, so it is in no way a commercial entity - it is part of a charitable trust. The main function of the SSSBC is to make Sai Baba's message freely available to the general public. The fact that the SSSBC sells books should be seen to conflict with this function, but in fact supports it. Any revenue from the sale of books goes directly to the SSUT. The SSSBC is also subsidised by the SSUT to cover the operating losses. 89.243.90.190 18:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the site was blacklisted because of a persistent campaign by a single editor to add the link in contravention to blocks and warnings. You can see the real reasons outlined on the MetaBlacklist.
Consider this to be  Not done until there is a consensus of the editors at Sathya Sai Baba for inclusion of these links.
In addition, if you disagree with a blacklisting I would recommend placing your protest on the blacklist page and not here. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Isabella Duberly

This Suite101 link appears to have been a legitimate citation in the article. -- Zanimum 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link you are requesting to be added is "www.suite101.com/article.cfm/crimean_war/108572/1"
 Not done The article was writen by "John Barham". As far as I can tell, Mr. Barham is not a reliable source on the topic of Frances Isabella Duberly. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Lesnar

I would like to add a new box to that page but i cant do so beacuse of this spam-protection. OC 10:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the address you want added to the spam-whitelist? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done - never mind, requester is indefblocked. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zod

I move to add the following URL to the white list: zodgaming.zapto.org. It seems that the entire zapto.org domain is currently blacklisted. In the Zod article, the author gets around it by simply bolding the URL but not properly linking it, but that's a big of an ugly (not to mention un-clickable) hack. I'm not involved with the game or the article, but just happened upon it looking for something else. Thanks! Revaaron 19:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done That article looks like it was created as an advertisement and I doubt very much that the article itself would survive a AFD. (It could be speedied under #A7 perhaps). I'll let others make that move, but I don't think white-listing the link would be prudent at this time. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

touregypt.net

The following reference was removed from Egyptian Railways: touregypt.net/featurestories/trainmuseum.htm because touregypt.net is a blacklisted hyperlink. Unfortunately the removal of the link leaves the article without the critical reference that is needed in three now unsupported assertions. I request to allow the link to be reestablished. A similar issue has been created for Statue of Ramesses II (Mit Rahina) where the removal of touregyt.net compromises the reference. Thank you. Ekem 12:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm looking into this... apparently the domain was blacklisted due to "cross wiki spam" ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KyraVixen removed the links with this edit. "m (Removing external link: *.touregypt.net -- per external link guidelines)". It looks like she removed two links in the external link section (both would have failed WP:EL in the context they were used) along with the citation to trainmuseum.htm.
So the question remains... is that website a reliable source? I think it's close enough for now. Consider the request to add touregypt.net/featurestories/trainmuseum.htm  Done. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
removed domain as it is a clear violation of WP:EL WP:SPAM Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again

I am trying to 'profundicate' the wiki info on Egyptian dynasties. Unfortunately, one of the best, (most informative), sites is at TourEgypt. The specific page is: hdyn12.htm The general page is: ehistory.htm I am moving this one slot up the list, because there it will follow another conflict regarding this same site. SMOMMSSSmommss 17:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the exact address you need whitelisted? If you don't put the "http://" on the front it will let you post the link. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT WHITELIST TOUREGYPT.NET thank you Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you making that proclamation under the authority of The Board on pain of desysoping or is that your personal opinion? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking around the site now and while it has some good information, it is mostly a blog site and seeming to want to sell me stuff. I would probably wait a few more days and ask around to see if this is worth white listing or not. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
take a look at the site, its advertisement with a little non original research. we can get the information in those pages with a little digging that doesn't provide them with free advertisement and profit. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 12:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked Beta. I don't whitelist any page without careful consideration and I don't appreciate being talked down-to.
I would appreciate my question answered before we can continue this conversation... Is your proclamation of "Do not whitelist..." a directive from the board or is it your personal opinion? I'm not being sarcastic here... your answer makes a difference in the direction this conversation will head. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But really, what, if any, assertion of authority or notability does TourEgypt provide? It seems like another tourism site, as far as I can tell. Shadow1 (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't trying to write an article on TourEgypt... people want to use it for some fairly uncontroversial sources. The site might not be a reliable source, but my choice was based on the idea that it was close enough that the regular editors at the article should make the call and have the discussion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No this discusion is a end run attemt at forking and bypassing the sbl. it was placed there for a reason and that argument is ongoing there this request to whitelist pages is just a way to ignore the reasons that it was SBL'ed I do not speak for the board I never said that I did. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 04:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the status of this request? I can understand that J.S. may be reluctant to reinstate the whitelisting because he does not want to start a wheel war, but if editors could get specific pages whitelisted, most of our concerns would be met & we could close the debate on meta. -- llywrch 21:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the whitelisting of touregypt. It was blacklisted for spamming wikipedia, which it was not. The links to this site have been added over a large period of time and for specific articles. There may be better sites, but the reason for adding to the blacklist was incorrect. 12:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markh (talk • contribs).
Thank you for replying to my question regarding the board.
I support a limited number of white-listings of specific pages on the domain. That is the purpose of the white-list after all. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So does that means someone will honor this request & whitelink the link requested? If possible, could an Admin besides J.S. (or me) do it to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest? -- llywrch 19:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are still having a conversation about it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an important question: Is there a consensus in support of inclusion of the links OR a consensus that the links are valid/reliable sources? If so, then I think the whitelist needs to reflect that consensus. If not, then this discussion is moot. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can include specific URL on the white list, since if their pages have references, then they can be valid. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I noticed is when I see articles about Egypt history on the website, it does list some sources to where they got the information. Another problem I see is that this website is third on Google for the search "Egypt," so either it is a resource used by many folks or it took the same route we did (since one and two belong to us). I would white list the specific pages that are needed for articles, but avoid white listing the entire domain. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problems is that a whole lot of pages would need to be whitelisted. This page was used heavily as a source, and the "opposition," so to speak, has yet to provide a single instance wherein the page was blatantly spammed in bad faith. Thus, I will suggest that the entire domain be whitelisted, and the people with problems can raise specific objections in specific places. We at Wikiproject Ancient Egypt are willing to be civil and discuss things, and welcome feedback. We do not, however, welcome consistant unilateral action on the part of one administrator who is unwilling to budge from his decree from on high that the site is to be avoided like the plague. Thanatosimii 00:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About how many would have to be whitelisted? Is there other websites that could be used in place of this, so we could reduce the number of white listed pages? While I do not know why the website was blacklisted in the first place, but I would like to strike a balance somehow while not trying to create or widen a wheel war. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a total count because these links were all added over the course of years as the need arose, and undoubtably there are many links removed from pages not even on my watchlist which would have to be restored. By my rough estimate, at least thirty, possibly upwards of fifty unique pages have been used as sources. There are 14 kings in the 18th dynasty with pages, less than 10 in the 19th dynasty, 9 in the 20th, as well as about 15 in the old kingdom and 15 in the new kingdom... there are specific pages for monuments, of which I can think of at least ten or fifteen.... strike that, you may have upwards of 70, potentially. If in fact this page was blocked because of cross wiki spamming (which is certainly not the reason why people are objecting to it being removed from the blacklist or added to the whitelist) it only makes sense that the whole domain should be aded to the english whitelist, since it may not belong in other language pages, but certainly belongs here. As to trying to avoid a wheel war (and perhaps this is assuming bad faith; I'm sorry, I've run out of optimism here), it is my suspicion based on bitter experience that if anyone does anything in the slightest to threaten the total extermination of touregypt from all wikipedia, it will be reverted and you will have a wheel war anyway. Thanatosimii 00:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I done is I added the website in, so you should be able to use it now. What I would like to suggest is the following: one, while your welcome to use the website, try and find other sites that could convey the same information and two, if the spamming becomes a major problem, come here again and we will try another tactic. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Thanks Zscout, but your work appears to have become unnecessary because Eagle 101 also removed this website from Meta:Spam blacklist. I guess we can archive this discussion now. -- llywrch 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

India Financial Markets

The site indiafinancialmarkets.blogspot.com is blocked. This is the only site that I have come across that gives a regular (weekly) update on the performance of major stock indices of the world. I wanted to add it to the page on stock indices of the world. Request you to unblock the same. Regds Somusk 08:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not doneI'm sorry, but that website does not seem to pass the requirements in WP:EL. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ is an information web site concerning Parkinson's Disease. It is the most comprehensive web site on Parkinson's Disease - far more comprehensive even than the Wikipedia article. Consequently, it appears on all of the Parkinson's Disease web sites including National Parkinson's Disease organisations and Parkinson's Disease patient forums.

1. viartis.net was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes, on the 13th August 2006.

2. The brief addition was directly relevant to the article, which concerned Parkinson's Disease, and was added merely as a reference to further detail concerning that subject.

3. There is not even one advert on the entire web site. It does not promote anything or anyone.

4. According to Wikipedia's definition of spam, it did not fulfill any of the definitions of spam.

5. There is no reason why it should have been blacklisted, which appears to have been in error.

--XX7 21:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • How reliable is that site? For example, it lists Hitler as having had Parkinson's, but last I saw there was only a single speculative source for that claim. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hitler had Parkinson's Disease for at least twelve years (1933-1945). It is widely acknowledged that Adolf Hitler had Parkinson's Disease, in books, articles and documentaries. It appears on National Parkinson web sites and also on Wikipedia under famous sufferers. This fact was purposefully covered up by the Nazi party during WWII, but is detailed in the diaries of Hitler's personal physician Theo Morrell, who diagnosed him and was treating him for Parkinson's Disease for many years. --XX7 10:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the venue you seek is the blacklist page... I haven't checked your claims, but it does sound like it doesn't really need to be on the blacklist any more. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was requested on the blacklist that it come here. It is very apparent by checking the web site, which contains no adverts at all and is entirely non-commercial that it doesn't fulfill any of the requirements for blacklisting. It was added to the blacklist by mistake due to being confused with a completely different web site. --XX7 10:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if you can show me that your site is not related to this (a translated copy of this), I will whitelist, as it does seem to be a decent source to me, though I'm not sure how reliable it is. —— Eagle101 Need help? 16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what relation the other web site is supposed to have to the Viartis web site. However, the web site you refer to concerns Latin, and Viartis also happens to be a latin word. Other than that the two web sites have nothing in common. --XX7 22:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does that answer it, or is there something on that other web site that I have not addressed ? --XX7 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked the original blacklister for input as to what that means, if there is no reply in a few days, I will consider removing the site from the blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If by "that" you mean Viartis, I looked it up in a Large Latin dictionary but couldn't find it, so it appears to be a rare Latin word. "Via" means "road" or something like it because the names of most Roman roads have "Via" in them. "Artis" must mean way or path, because the pharmaceutical company Novartis was named after Nova Artis, which they said meant "new way" or "new path". It's certainly not an offensive term. --XX7 22:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be removed from the blacklist now ? --XX7 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I asked the original blacklister for input as to what that means, if there is no reply in a few days, I will consider removing the site from the blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

It's well beyond a few days so surely it's time to remove it from the blacklist. It should never have been there. --XX7 21:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This web site has now been removed from the Blacklist, so it is no longer an issue here. --XX7 13:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/03&oldid=1108537697"