MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/02

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

Approved requests

www.centrozenmex.co.cc

Tried to get www.centrozenmex.co.cc removed from blacklist, but was referred here instead. Main objections were that most .co.cc domains are redirects, and that it wasn't sure that the site was authoritative. The site is not a redirect, and I think it is under the .co.cc domain because the maintainers used to have the site at GeoCities, which was shut down at the end of October 2009. Since .co.cc offers free domain names, I'm assuming the site maintainers saw it as a cheap way to get a domain name after GeoCities closed. You can see that the www.centrozenmex.co.cc site says "actualizado 7 de noviembre de 2009," or "updated November 7, 2009" in English (just after the GeoCities closing). The page is currently the first listed on a Google search for Centro Zen de México, giving more credence to the idea that it is the current, post-GeoCities, authoritative site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.163.207.73 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed seems now to be the official site, can't find where it could possibly redirect to (except for the internet archive or the original).  Done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

examiner.com 4

I would like to add the link http://www.examiner.com/x-30387-SF-Cultural-Travel-Examiner~y2010m2d1-Chor-Boogie-releases-a-flock-of-beautiful-Boogie-Birds as a source in the Chor Boogie article to source the claim that the artist's series of "Boogie Birds" miniatures measure 2 X 2 inches. It would improve the article to describe the actual size of the works rather than simply calling them miniatures. I am aware of the reliability and spam issues with the Examiner generally. However, in this case the claim is modest and uncontentious, and author, John Jerney,[1] is a professional journalist and board member / chapter head for the American Society of Media Photographers. I believe that qualifies him as an expert, at least as far as reporting the physical size of artwork. Having read the entire article, it covers much of the same ground and does not contradict any of the print media sources - it appears to be of a quality at least as trustworthy as some of the local media. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 13:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - Wikidemon (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

google.com/cse

I'd like www.google.com /cse/home?cx=009114923999563836576:1eorkzz2gp4 unbanned for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga; it's a custom search engine focusing on RS websites (and filtering many bad websites), which I hope will be useful to members of the project. But it'd be nice to be able to actually link it. --Gwern (contribs) 00:08 17 January 2010 (GMT)

  • I second this request. This custom search engine will prove (and has [proved) extremely useful in filtering out useless results. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. This would appear to be a wholey apropriate link for use in WikiProject Anime and manga. I've whitelisted this URL; http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=009114923999563836576:1eorkzz2gp4 . Thanks Done--Hu12 (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was this actually done? I tried to fix my links on the linked talk page, but got hit with a blacklist anyway. --Gwern (contribs) 13:12 18 January 2010 (GMT)
Hu12 said that http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=009114923999563836576:1eorkzz2gp4 was whitelisted .. if this saves that works. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whitelisting works. I have successfully used the links in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Custom_search_engine. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Errrr, the second link (linking directly to a search result) only works if you replace the ":" with "%3A":
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=wings+of+honneamise
Maybe we should use that in the whitelisting... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added the link http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4, with anything after "...%3A1eorkzz2gp4" unblocked. test  Done--Hu12 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it still needs one tweak. The "/home" string has to be removed from this last link, or it just redirects to the home page instead of displaying the search. The entry has to be:
\bwww\.google\.com/cse\?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4
--Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Hu12 (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It keeps triggering the blacklist, both with and without "q=" at the end. "The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://www.google.com/cse"

  • http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4
  • http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=wings+of+honneamise

--Enric Naval (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is it your actualy trying to do? I would appear a link to the custom search engine is sufficient for the project. If you attempting to link to individual search results, it won't produce th results you expect. --Hu12 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576.
Ok, but the url will change (and be blocked) after hiting search button a second time. The url will be blocked if you do multiple searches in the same session. It's probably best to post what information is found in the search rather than the search link itself. I think we've gone unecessarily further than what was the initial intended use. --Hu12 (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... you are right. You know what, how about we leave only the first entry and remove the other three ones? That is enough to link to the home page. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it seems that searches like http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=amanchu are now passing through! I won't argue about linking to searches being useful (it is), but I'm happy it seems to be working now. --Gwern (contribs) 16:38 22 January 2010 (GMT)

Dang, why wasn't it working for me the other day? :) Anyways, the good thing about these search links is that you can change the search terms by hand. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner.com

I want to link to www.examiner.com/x-11363-Dallas-TV-Examiner~y2009m12d31-Rush-Limbaugh-accidentally-declared-dead-by-Wikipedia in this signpost article. I can has? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Stifle (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

moneyweek.com

would like to use the following link for Jack Dellal : www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/jack-dellal-the-enigmatic-property-dealer-who-walks-away-unscathed-from-crashes.aspx Inwind (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to approve this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Stifle (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist a single article from examiner.com


Please whitelist URL: www.examiner.com/examiner/x-14345-Celebrity-Chef-Examiner~y2009m11d9-The-final-four-Next-Iron-Chef-Elimination-Exclusive-interview-with-Chef-Amanda-Freitag

  • Unique content, an exclusive interview with the subject in question
  • A valid primary source for biographical information per WP:SELFPUB on article Amanda Freitag
  • Will not be used for any negative or controversial claims
  • I am not connected to the author or the subject and don't have a conflict of interest

Thanks. Gigs (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. While the interviewer (Kimberly Raines) appears to not be authorative, this appears to be the origional source. I've whitelisted http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-14345-Celebrity-Chef-Examiner~y2009m11d9-The-final-four-Next-Iron-Chef-Elimination-Exclusive-interview-with-Chef-Amanda-Freitag [2]. thanks gigs  Done--Hu12 (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Gigs (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Digit Press

I'm not sure exactly why it's blocked, but I need to use http://www.digitpress.com/library/interviews/interview_don_bluth.html this URL for development information; I don't imagine that this could be gotten from anywhere else, since the interview seems to be by them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added as a result of serious longterm abuses . However the link you requested, http://www.digitpress.com/library/interviews/interview_don_bluth.html is  Done.--Hu12 (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2074.banners-4u.co.cc

is it cuz of the .co.cc? i don't know, can some1 help me with this?

i'm trying 2 put the link on my page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mjbennett06 --Mjbennett06 (talk) 06:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it is the .co.cc, which is in general just a redirect. I can't find where this could be redirecting, so I presume that this is not one. hence, plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denied requests

shakespearssister.co.uk/

This is the band website page. Hoping to get a link to the page from the wiki page etc. I dont know why this site was blacklisted but its up and running now and full of current info etc. Just a fan trying to help out other fans... the new album is very very good by the way! Thanks (I hope I did this right) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespears_Sister

Thanks, 204.179.219.251 (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC) 204.179.219.251 (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long term spamming and abuse including Moving ones own link "UP", and off site harassment and personal attacks from the site in question. no Declined due to the mass spamming, disruption, harassment and abuse that has occured by this site.--Hu12 (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request Wave 96.4 Facebook Page

Hello, If it's possible could you unblock this specific facebook page, please : facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FThe-Wave%2F309664468867%3Fcreated%26v%3Dinfo%23%2Fpages%2FThe-Wave%2F309664468867%3Fv%3Dwall&h=dc3c774c6b7c2e6f00196d6e62f4fcbd

For I need to carry out an edit on The Wave 96.4 FM article - I need to change the branding section on the info box to obtain the specific information that is held on this blocked page. The facebook page was started by the radio station themselves and holds reliable information which can be added to the article, however, I can not use this page as a reference as it is blocked. There is no other website in which I have viewed that contains this information. Help would be appreciated. Thanks.Jonny7003 (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a very convoluted link. Can it be shortened? Stifle (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost certain that it is able to be shortened as Facebook has a habit of messing up URLs. I think the one he wants is one of these: facebook.com/group.php?gid=198133233548 or facebook.com/group.php?gid=2391246847. Obviously, clarification is needed from the original poster as to which one he wants. TomBeasley (talk) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are just some links, such as facebook that are better served on the stations official website site, rather than wikipedia. no Declined per WP:EL and WP:NOT--Hu12 (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Casey at Associated Content

I cannot believe you have blacklisted all articles from Associated content. I want my articles on eternity, where did the universe come from and many others like these to be considered, I have done much study on these subjects, and want to create a link to my articles, as well as contribute. Here is the URL of one of my articleshttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2639897/where_did_the_universe_come_from_and.html?cat=9

no Declined Your article is not a reliable source. I can see no reason on earth why wikipedia would ever wish to link to it. Reading the Associated Content "About us", it is abundantly clear why we do not link to it. I really think you are not understanding wikipedia, and suggest you start at the reliable source page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

examiner.com 3


I would like to add this link www.examiner.com/x-18103-Lehigh-Valley-IronPigs-Examiner to the External Links section of the Lehigh Valley IronPigs Wikipedia page. There are other blogs already listed there and I feel that this blog would give fans even more information on the team. It gives just as pertinent information as the other blogs listed and should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironpigsfan23 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Denied, not a reliable source. See also WP:ELNO item 1. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner.com

My Examiner page has been up on Wikepedia for almost 1 year under "Marin County Media." I would like to add the link <www.examiner.com/x-6025-Culture--Events-Examiner~y2009m8d24-Jazz-Mafia-perform-astounding-HipHop-Symphonyand-theyre-taking-it-on-the-road-video> as a source in the Jazz Mafia article. I was one of the first writers anywhere to review their most important work, "Brass, Bows, and Beats." I am interviewing the Jazz Mafia's leader, Adam Theis, for a follow-up article to be published in a few weeks. I am a credentialed journalist for the Monterey Jazz Festval and Treasure Island Music Festival, among others, and will soon be publishing a review of Dave Chappelle's performance in Oakland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olfoghorn (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner.com pages are not permitted to be linked from Wikipedia; they fail WP:RS, and as driving traffic to your page would give you a financial benefit, this request fails WP:COI as well.  Denied Stifle (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ow.ly/15Nef

This specific page explains the numerous allusions specific to Chinese net culture in the machinima "War of Internet Addiction" (recently a DYK). kencf0618 (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ow.ly is a URL shortener. You can use http://buzz.youku.com/2010/02/10/when-the-virtual-clashes-with-the-real/ instead. no Declined MER-C 02:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request neuro.cjb.net

It's the website of the Journal of Neuroscience. cjb.net is blocked in the global whitelist, I believe. I have no idea why. Jtoomim (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shortening service, you can use http://www.jneurosci.org/. no Declined, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ehow.com

Please unblock ehow.com for my article on Kenny Khym because I would like to list it as a source as I used it to discover much of the information in the article.Wolf9810 (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Wolf9810 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf9810 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined Per WP:Reliable sources and WP:COI. (Article should probably be deleted anyway, as it doesn't add anything that couldn't be included in the Southpole article). OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.examiner.com/x-12564-Boston-Healthy-Living-Examiner~y2009m7d3-Build-a-better-burger

I'd like to link to just this single page from the examiner.com website which has an article that was used to source the change in nutritional content of the subject in the article Cheeseburger, which adds to the encyclopedic value of the article as can be seen in the second paragraph of the lead section.[3] This was discussed on the Cheeseburger article's talk page. Thanks! Dreadstar ☥ 05:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner.com pages have no editorial oversight, failing WP:RS, and the site gives monetary incentives to contributors to increase page views. Therefore, this request is  Not done. Stifle (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

accessibletravel.suite101.com/article.cfm/cerebral_palsy_no_barrier_to_art

This web story "Cerebral Palsy No Barrier to Art" is a useful reference on Dan Keplinger. It included online ads, but no more than many online news sites. It is a relevant reference to a useful article. The link helps to verify multiple facts stated in the article. DES (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suite101.com sites have no editorial oversight; content is self-published, failing WP:RS, and authors are offered monetary incentives to increase page views. Therefore, this is  Not done. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freenode

Hey,

I feel it would be prudent to link to Encyclopedia Dramatica on the Freenode page. This page is linked to by the tech news site The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/30/firefox_interprotocol_attack/) and contains details - technical and otherwise - about the spam campaign and Firefox exploit that recently occurred.

The page I'd like to link to is this one (spaces added as I can't post it otherwise): http:// encyclopediadramatica.com /Firefox_XPS_IRC_Attack

--Razakel19 (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that regardless of the situation, ED is not a reliable source. It is written firmly tongue in cheek and the information is usually heavily biased. It can't be neutral and therefore can't be a way to source information. TomBeasley (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you, but it has been cited by the reputatable The Register and probably some others. Of course it won't be neutral, it was written by the people responsible! --Razakel19 (talk) 12:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ED is absolutely never a reliable source. I cannot see a reason to link this. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that linking to an untrusted site is not warranted. The linked page may contain helpful information, but tomorrow it may contain attempts to exploit vulnerable browsers. Wikipedia does not need up to date information on every exploit, and there is no ED page that is a reliable source for anything other than what ED is. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Denied Stifle (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.bestwestern.de/eworldshop

The above link is to be used in en.wikipedia.org/Miles_&_More The biggest airline miles program in Europe is Mile and More. Best Western is one of the largest hotel chains in the world. It is unfortunate that Miles and More website points to .de domain of bestwestern hotels, but that should not prevent us from allowing the very popular and well used sites from being in the whitelist Abrahma (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with linking to http://www.miles-and-more.com ? Stifle (talk) 09:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kechb.co.cc

This is a site that relates to the school 'King Edwards VI Camp Hill School For Boys' that cannot currently be added to the External links on the page for that school found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Edward_VI_Camp_Hill . As you can see when you visit the website, it is found to be very useful to all students of King Edwards Camp Hill, and is proven to be linked with that school through the URL (KECHB stands for the full school name) and the contents on the single page website. Therefore it should be included on the page given in order to make sure all people concerned with that school have the option of visiting this very beneficial site. I believe there may be a problem with the site http://co.cc/ concerning issues like spam, however, although this site uses the service of http://co.cc , it is not involved with anything that site does and therefore is not malicious or anything of that nature. Thanks. 77.98.7.209 (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've already had this request; it is not the official site of the school (which is already linked from the page), and it is not even remotely useful for Wikipedia users. no Declined. Stifle (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are wrong there. This site is in fact useful for the school, especially for students, as the main site is unreliable (For example the main school site is not available at times just like it is at this moment in time: you can check by trying to visit the official site; it has been down for a very long time now) to students and wikipedia users especially in a time where all of this snow in the UK is causing this school to close on unexpected days (news about King Edwards VI Camp Hill School closures are normally up on the official school website), when KECHB.co.cc is there in order to put up information for students and parents alike to know the latest news. Therefore it is extremely beneficial. And yes it may not be the 'Official' site, but as the official site cannot be relied on, the important information about the school can be found by wikipedia users on this website. I believe that this is an important link for wikipedia for that school page. Also, seeing as this link is not bad in any way, I don't see why it is banned from wikipedia. Every little helps. 77.98.7.209 (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Students already know the site and I rather doubt they will be going through Wikipedia to get to it. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

associatedcontent.com

Single page: associatedcontent.com/article/646075/ctrlaltdelete_a_web_comic_review.html Sources for notability of Ctrl+Alt+Del. Thanks. Rich(Contribs)(Talk to me!) 08:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Denied, associatedcontent.com has no editorial oversight and fails WP:RS, and it pays contributors based on page views. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist cais-soas.com

I am not quite sure why the mentioned website is considered as a spam, this website has been used as a reliable resource for many historical and archeological subjects since 1998 as it holds its credibility from its connections with many accountable univesities such as University of London. The page that I needed is a reference for the Article of "Human Rights"; cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/Cyrus-the-great/cyrus_cylinder.htm#Shapour Suren-Pahlav I will appreciate if an admin look into the website and make the necessary decisions about this educational resource to be removed from the spam list. Thank you. Armaiti (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This site was blocked at Meta after being identified as carrying images and content in violation of copyrights [4]. This site violates WP:Copyrights, Linking to copyrighted works. Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [5]).[6]. Additionaly wikipedias servers are located in the United States, it's of no benefit, nor in wikipedias intrest to link this site. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist ansicon.adoxa.cjb.net

This site contains a Windows application, along with full C source, that provides ANSI Escape Sequence support for Windows XP and above, where the normal ANSI.SYS does not work. Jason (the code's author) has provided 2 sites for the tool. Only 1 is needed for inclusion into WikiPedia. Both have been requested for whitelist status as I don't know why these sites are blacklisted. The Wikipedia page is ANSI_escape_code.

I cannot see how this site meets WP:RS or WP:ELNO item 1. Therefore, I am inclined to deny the request and will do so later this month unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Denied Stifle (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could have reacted to this one. cjb.net is practically a url-shortener. Please use the official homepage (http://adoxa.110mb.com/ansicon/ , though that still fails both WP:RS and WP:EL, and probably WP:NOT.

Request to whitelist adoxa.110mb.com/ansicon/

This site contains a Windows application, along with full C source, that provides ANSI Escape Sequence support for Windows XP and above, where the normal ANSI.SYS does not work. Jason (the code's author) has provided 2 sites for the tool. Only 1 is needed for inclusion into WikiPedia. Both have been requested for whitelist status as I don't know why these sites are blacklisted. The Wikipedia page is ANSI_escape_code.

I cannot see how this site meets WP:RS or WP:ELNO item 1. Therefore, I am inclined to deny the request and will do so later this month unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above, 110mb.com is IIRC not blacklisted, though this link fails our guidelines. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wp.me/P3fex-h3

I think it could be interesting to whitelist this single page of my weblog, which is dedicated to the Allobroges tribe of Gaul. The material is a translation of a story by Maguelone Toussaint Samat, a French academic and specialist of Gaul. It provides a vivid account of the Allobroges character. Fredericerk (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't allow links to URL shorteners; you can use the full link http://fredericerk.com/tales/the-will-of-the-allobroge/ instead (although whether it passes WP:RS is debatable.  Not done Stifle (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thank you for kind advice. I am looking forward to hearing from Wikipedia community :-) -- Fredericerk (talk)09:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to modify this report. At this point it's best to stay away from editing or linking to topics which you are directly related. Some things to keep in mind before proceding further;
The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. For questions and discussions about the reliability of sources, the appropriate place for discussion is at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, not here. Since fredericerk.com is not blocked, closing this report as  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for considering my request :-) --Frederic Erk 12:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Examiner (2)

I would like to use an article (http:// www DOT examiner DOT com/x-26772-San-Francisco-Apologetics-Examiner~y2009m12d28-New-Years-Resolution--Answer-the-Skeptics-Annotated-Bible-in-2010) in the article The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.--SuaveArt (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out in this edit, please see here, here, here and here. Seregain (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Denied Stifle (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

examiner.com links

Please consider whitelisting the following links: www.examiner.com/x-27332-Seattle-Roller-Derby-Examiner~y2009m11d17-Do-the-Oly-Rollers-change-roller-derby www.examiner.com/x-27332-Seattle-Roller-Derby-Examiner~y2009m11d15-Oly-Rollers-take-home-2009-WFTDA-National-Championship to be included on the following page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oly_Rollers These articles simply clarify the sport team's competition record. This team was newly crowned national champions, and these two articles document this accomplishment. Thank you for your consideration. bellamommaBellamomma (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner.com:
  • Articles are essentially self-written with little or no editorial oversight (see WP:RS)
  • Offer authors financial incentives to increase page views
no Declined Stifle (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist single page from examiner.com

Could the single page www.examiner.com/x-15209-The-Dead-Examiner~y2010m1d1-Furthur-NYE-show-first-of-many-for-2010 be white listed please? For use in the article Furthur (band). The article refs the names of the addition of the two new vocalists in the band. Thanks. 76.191.212.129 (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner.com is not considered a reliable source, as articles are essentially self-written. Are there any better sources for this? Stifle (talk) 11:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist single page from declarationofindependents.net

I am requesting the single page declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/reviews/mic_reviews/mcpinions46.html be whitelisted for use in the article Major League Wrestling. The page contains information about MLW, correcting a lie perpetrated by MLW's former owner, Court Bauer. The person who wrote the column did some research & found out that there is no WGO Properties. Thanks. 67.173.117.222 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be a reliable source; I am inclined to deny this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Denied Stifle (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://tinyurl dot com slash desktopbsd17

Wikipedia incorrectly handles URLs with '[' and ']' brackets. That's why some links are not resolved correctly, see:

FreeBSD Derivatives
DesktopBSD 1.7 discontinuation info

Either fix it or allow to use tinyurl-like site for such cases. m_gol (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percent-encoding is what you are looking for. MER-C 03:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example: http://desktopbsd.net/index.php?id=43&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=41&cHash=b6ad95fd57 --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined Stifle (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.squidoo.com/ventriculomegaly-info

to be added to...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventriculomegaly

I fully appreciate why squidoo.com would be blocked here, but I'd be grateful if you'd consider allowing this particular lens page - it serves as a hub for worried parents scouring the net for scant information on Fetal Ventriculomegaly.

This disorder is rare, and it's hard to find decent references in order for parents to make their decisions concerning their pregnancies - I created the page to act as a handy point of reference for parents having to consider the outlook, and make critical decisions, for their baby.

It would undoubtedly help parents to see it on an otherwise medical-based article, but I think it would also help Wikipedia by pointing to a relevant, helpful and condensed hub page with further information than is available in the short article itself.

Thanks for reading Webwahm (talk) 23:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

squidoo.com links
  • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
  • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
  • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
Unfortunatly this is your first and only edit to wikipedia, secondly the page your requesting is your lense, (squidoo.com/lensmasters/Web-Wahm) and is a Conflict of interest. Additionaly Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote your Squidoo page. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bit.ly/wiimusic

to be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wii_Music --Logan (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Denied. We don't allow links to URL shorteners; just link http://www.videogamesblogger.com/2008/10/24/how-to-unlock-all-wii-music-songs-an d-instruments-guide.htm directly. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner.com

Request whitelist so I can add the source for File:Mountain_Hardwear_logo.png, which came from http ://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID20956/images/Mountain_Hardware_logo.gif Thanks, --Terrillja talk 05:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Denied, a proper source is already present on the image. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the current source links to the same image but smaller. I would think that we want to cite where the larger, higher res image is coming from, no?--Terrillja talk 15:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in agreement with Stifle, the image is properly sourced. Intellectual property rights are still owned by Mountain Hardwear. Additionaly, I'd be concerned about Linking to copyrighted works, I could find no fair use disclaimers. But if you want to reference, use the <nowiki></nowiki> tag, or just add the plain text of the url (minus the http://). Hyperlinking is uneeded either way. --Hu12 (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No question that Mountain Hardwear owns the IP rights, but I figured that the source of the larger logo should be specified anyways. The larger logo did exist on the mhw site before but it was taken down a few months ago, so it wouldn't make much sense to link to a 404 error page. Looks like either way I go I'll be shooting myself in the foot.--Terrillja talk 16:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist eu-football.info

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

This appears to be a really useful statistics and history site for international football. I originally posted a blacklist request at [7] and was pointed to here. Eldumpo (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, has anyone got a view on this? Is there any more information I need to provide - I've not had any involvement with whitelists before. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add my support - as explained above, this site contains some very useful football statistics, and is the only website as far as I am aware that includes full details of the careers of many early international footballers. Not knowing why it has been blacklisted makes it hard to address any issues the site may have. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A useful and serious site, which provides details on pre-WWII footballers in English which are very hard to find. I tried to backup an article with it but could not and had to put a link in Hungarian, if I remember well.--Latouffedisco (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site is unique database of all official international football matches of all European national teams. There is statistics about every player of that matches, clubs which they represented. Nothing similar exists in WWW. This statistics is very useful to Wikipedia users. Some authors also already use statistics from this database in Wikipedia articles. Tyxis (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this request is ignored Tyxis (talk) 07:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After 3 weeks, can an admin please look at this. Thanks. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Massive cross project abuse, with multiple full domain declines 1, 2, 3, 4. I see several statements that its "useful", however the web is full of useful stuff and isn't a valid reason for whitelisting the entire domain. Another concern is is the cross wiki activity of Tyxis (talk · contribs), whos Multi project contribs seems primarily eu-football.info related only, incuding previous request here and adding links[8][9] on other whitelisted projects. I think its reasonable, however, if a specific link is needed as a citation, one of the etablished editors can request a direct URL specifically for consideration on case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source (Example; http://www.eu-football.info/relevant/and/reliable_source.htm). As for the request for the entire domain to be whitelisted, this is  Not done --Hu12 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response on this. Rather than question those parts of the response I'm not sure of (e.g. what 'massive project abuse' means and why it is a problem that Tykis mainly makes edits with reference to the site in question) I will take up the offer of raising specific requests when I want the site linked, and see how practical and speedy that is. Who were you referring to by 'established editors'. Should specific citation requests be posted on this page, or your talk page, or somewhere else? Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've been adding players to the List of Wales international footballers I've begun to realise that this site is not terribly reliable. For example, the careers of the various Robert or Bob Roberts (all of whom were active around the same time) were completely muddled, so while I find it useful to identify the debutantes on a match-by-match basis, I have to cross-check everything back to the "Who's Who of Welsh International Soccer Players" book. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. There are much more 'reliable' sources... There are thousands of links to these sources on Wikipedia's pages... For example, weltfussball.de ) Tyxis (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The english version (of weltfussball.de) is http://worldfootball.net, which is not blocked... --Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But if weltfussball.de is blocked, why thousands of links to it are not removed from Wikipedia? It seems that some resources are discriminated in contrast to weltfussball.de (worldfootball.net) Tyxis (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://weltfussball.de is not blocked, its just not in english. This is the english wikipedia. It's apparent there are plenty of reasonable, reliable alternatives avaliable, therefore Closing this as  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hamster-club.com

1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted. - hamster - club.com offers several hamster information especially this page hamster - club.com/health.asp 2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. hamster - club.com/health.asp PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAD TO ADD A SPACE BEFORE AND AFTER THE - SINCE IT IS NOT ALLOWING ME TO TYPE THE ACTUAL URL! 3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamster (213.165.180.165 (talk) 10:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

This site doesn't appear to be blacklisted, http://www.hamsterclub.com/health.asp works for me. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never mind that, it's hamster-club.com. I just opened it and it doesn't appear to have any content. Site appears to fail WP:ELNO item 1. no Declined Stifle (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neutralaccent.com

I would like to remove the whole page on neutralaccent.com from spamlist. Reason it is a genuine and reputed website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.68.42.138 (talk • contribs)

Continued spamming with redirect domain neutralenglish.com. See WikiProject Spam report. Rejected MER-C 04:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laestadianism

There are missing in the references & sources all the blogs, and informative websites. From the information seekers' point of view there in the source list would be useful service to mention some international sources as following:


Web sites, blogs & discussions [the title of this part]

  • laestadian-ism.blogspot.com/ Laestadian-ism - The blog for a Finnish research project focusing on the political dimensions of laestadianism.
  • extoots.blogspot.com/ Learning to live free: Life as a former laestadian - An information & discussion website.
  • postlaestadianrevival.freeforums.org/ - Postlaestadian Revival the Ex-Firstborn Laestadians' Forum.
  • freepathways.wordpress.com/ Omat Polut: Freepathways - A Finnish blog, focus in the Conservative Laestadianism; partly published in English.

(Suggestions by Classiclevi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Classiclevi (talk • contribs) 21:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Declined. These are blogs of no obvious encyclopaedic value and fail our sources policy. Note that links to freepathways.wordpress.com were reverted by XLinkbot, the user has no edits other than linking this blog. Enough said. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://revelationspace dot free forums dot org

(above address could not be included in its regular form because it is blacklisted, so I used "dot" instead of "."

To be used on pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Reynolds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_Space

...and other pages associated with the Revelation Space universe.

I'm assuming the problem is with the forum host, but I'd ask that editors of this page please follow the link where you can see that it is a legitimate fan forum, with several ongoing discussions of this author's work. And more importantly, it appears to be the only fan forum for this author, who is a popular science fiction writer in Europe and the U.S.

I also included (in the same edit) links to book reviews, and hope to add more information on Revelation Space because that entry (and several associated with it) are tagged as requiring more work. Thank you for your time. Stormstrike (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined, forums are not considered to be reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one's making the case for whether the forum is a "reliable source." I'm not attempting to source any of the material in the article to the forum -- I simply want to put a link to the forum under "External links" so readers interested in Alastair Reynolds and the Revelation Space universe can join in on discussions about the books if they'd like to, and read information about short stories written by Mr. Reynolds.

There are thousands upon thousands of wikipedia entries that have External links to discussion boards and fan sites for various authors, artists and musicians. Notice how the entry for Iain M. Banks (a very similar author of space opera) includes a link a fan site with forums -- that's all I'm asking.

Please read this request carefully, as again, I am not asking to source anything to the forum. Stormstrike (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunatly forums, fansites and social networking sites are all Links normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. As to pointing out that other articles have forum links, doesn't make for an exception that this link should also be included.--Hu12 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. I read the relevant section, and it seems the main focus of those external "links to be avoided" are things like Myspace, Usenet groups, Yahoo groups, etc. I can understand that.

But in this case, we are talking about the only existing forum and news site for Alastair Reynolds, a British science fiction author. This forum is not only a discussion place, it is also an author-specific news site where information on the author's new stories and collections are posted. Again, nothing is to be sourced to that forum: I simply want to include it for folks who may want to discuss his work and read more about his novels and short stories.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this would lower the quality of the associated Wikipedia pages. I've started cleaning up some of those Reynolds pages, and most of them have very few links to external sources. Including such a link would actually be useful to people who enjoyed reading Mr. Reynolds's books, since the author only maintains a blog (which is not really focused on the books) and there is no "official site" for the series.

It seems the distinction here is about including information vs not including information. On such sparse entries, it's hard to see how a single relevant, small link would increase Wikipedia's noise ratio. Again, I really feel the information would be enormously helpful to folks interested in the subject matter. One other thing to note is that the link *was* allowed while the forum/news site had its own domain -- is that some sort of threshhold for inclusion? That seems a bit inconsistent. Stormstrike (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it's about the quality of the information. This is just a forum, it doesn't matter if it's the only one on the topic or one of a thousand, it's still just a forum. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

harisnyadiszkont.hu

Page listed on meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/LinkReports/harisnyadiszkont.hu -> WikiPedia spam links removed about a year ago. We are waiting for delete from blacklisting. I just knew that i can post here to whitelisting.

no Declined No valid reason presented for whitelisting. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TVRage.com

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Yawn. MER-C 13:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the heroes page on TVRage and found that it provided very detailed information, so i thought i would share the link here on wikipedia since most of the links i went to don't have all the information i wanted, but it says the website is banned, don't understand why a website that has very detailed information about heroes, cast/crew to an episode level and recaps for every episode with trailers, how can i get this link added? and all together is it possible to unban tvrage completely since they seem to have the most information on current shows and makes no sense that they can not be added here while other sites with almost no information value are added. hope you take this request into consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.160.44 (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined Detailed, perhaps, but not reliable according to our policies. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how is it less reliable then tv.com or epguides.com links i see. and epguides.com has the episode lists of tvrage.Com so i'm confused.

There have been extensive discussions here and on the spam blacklist (see discussions linked here: whitelist search and blacklist search, as well as other noticeboards and on Meta). It does not give a good picture of the site. If you want to use one specific link, ask for whitelisting of that specific link (and be sure that the information on the page you want to link to is not covered somewhere else), otherwise, as Guy says, no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so from what I've been reading of previous discussions one staff of tvrage went overboard adding links got fired for it on tvrage and now the site is banned forever? there is also mention of tvrage members adding links, so if a few members of tv.com decided to add the website on every single show page is that not also considered spam and shouldn't tv.Com be banned as well, you seem to take the actions of a few members 0.01% of tvrage's members and base a ban on that that seems a bit over the top to me, help me try and understand this, is it because tv.Com is a bigger website? cause that would be biased. sorry if i ask to many questions, but when something doesn't make sense to me it drives me crazy and i have a obsession of understanding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.160.44 (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You keep comparing with tv.com (as did others in the past .. which gives me the impression that you are related to them ...). Please discuss the merits of tvrage.com, forget the existence of other links, as that is not a suitable argument (follow the two links and read what type of arguments we talk about). It was not 'a few links got spammed', it was a major part of it. TVRage.com got spammed and is not a WP:RS, so why allow for a new influx?
As I say, it is not banned forever, you can still request specific whitelisting, we're not going to whitelist the whole site, or remove it from the blacklist, to keep the additions under control. Again, no Declined --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i am not related to them, i will however drop this issue. doesn't surprise me wikipedia keeps losing editors in the tens of thousands as a recent article i read, with an admin staff that makes no sense and is biased, lets hope google's knol takes your place as the information source in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.160.44 (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would loose something more important when we would blindly link to all sites which are totally unreliable, if we would allow spammers to add any link one want: readers and users. Additionally, you don't seem to be able to convince us that tvrage.com is needed and useful? If you can tell me where I do not make sense, and how I am biased, then I would be grateful, maybe I can learn something. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i would argue why links to other sites like tv.com which is basicly traded in information for advertisments, only viable link then would be the official website, but yet you allow them for a reason to show diversity, adding a link to a website that has more information that is available on wikipedia would fall under that category don't you think, i hope you learned something new as requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.169.19 (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have more than Wikipedia has? Get the info!! Incorporate it into Wikipedia!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you can't add trailers and gallery images to wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.169.19 (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries, yes, upload the images; trailers, we have links to the official sites so they should be there. Occasionally another link to a trailer somewhere else might be interesting, but for that, we can whitelist if necessary. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

nemanja.co.cc

The article is about young serbian artist Nemanja Nikolic [nemanja nikolic serbian painter]. Adding his site to the white list would contribute to the promotion of nemanja's work, also serbian art [serbian painters]. Bojan174 (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)user:bojan174Bojan174 (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"would contribute to the promotion of nemanja's work" => Rejected. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting (the works of) Nemanja Nikolic. MER-C 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, Invalid, Malformed or Otherwise Past Relevance

Request Wave 96.4 Facebook Page

Hello, If it's possible could you unblock this specific facebook page, please : facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpages%2FThe-Wave%2F309664468867%3Fcreated%26v%3Dinfo%23%2Fpages%2FThe-Wave%2F309664468867%3Fv%3Dwall&h=dc3c774c6b7c2e6f00196d6e62f4fcbd

For I need to carry out an edit on The Wave 96.4 FM article - I need to change the branding section on the info box to obtain the specific information that is held on this blocked page. The facebook page was started by the radio station themselves and hold reliable information which can be added to the artcile, however, I can not use this page as a reference as it is blocked. Help would be appreciated. Thanks.Jonny7003 (talk) 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate request. Stifle (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist a single page from z15.invisionfree.com

I am aware that forums are not considered reliable sources for information, however in this case, I believe the use of it is justified. I wish to be able to use the page z15.invisionfree.com/Frankie_Boyle/index.php?showtopic=263 as it will benefit the Frankie Boyle page as a citation for the section about his podcast, which is currently poorly sourced. Despite the forum itself not being the most reliable of sources, the information is directly quoted from the official Frankie Boyle website, on which no copy of the article remains to be cited. Whilst the source is the forum, the information comes from an official website.

--TomBeasley (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that I haven't ignored or missed this request; I just am undecided. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this request going to be answered at any point? TomBeasley (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can get the same announcement from Boyle's myspace site: [10]. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh fantastic. I didn't know this. Thank you. The matter is now resolved and the whitelist request is now unnecessary. TomBeasley (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

examiner.com/x-22491-Buffalo-Dance-Examiner~y2009m12d31-Heather-Morris-brings-Glee-to-Buffalo

I would like to whitelist a single page on examiner.com containing an interview with the subject of the following page Heather Elizabeth Morris. In particular the interview discusses how the actress joined the show. I have read the issues above and below regarding examiner.com, but I can't find another source for this information so far. Ruevian (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Hi, sorry but I can withdraw the above request, I found another more appropriate source Ruevian (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Withdrawn Stifle (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

node.tumblr.com

This website is a blog that provides background information on the novel Spook Country. It is the main website for the article Node Magazine (parent publication), thus meeting WP:ELYES point one for that article. It also meets WP:ELMAYBE point for for the article Spook Country, as has been noted by reliable sources and the author of the novel. Tumblr is on the meta spam blacklist. See also this VPT thread. Thanks,  Skomorokh  12:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

looks as if it is whitelisted[11], despite the article already containing the real " Official Link". Unfortunatly according to nodemagazine.wordpress 09.01.07 states "Node-man, a Gibson fan, has duly set up a website with the devotional URL node.tumblr.com. The fan is unidentified..." Unfortunatly Links to blogs, personal web pages and fansites are Links normally to be avoided.--Hu12 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done, although I would be inclined to reverse this. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

Fallingrain.com

Myself, Darwinek and many other active editors are well aware that this site contains false information, particularly population and altitude which have regularly been shown to be grossly inaccurate. For instance it would say "771 people" in a 7 km radius yet according to official Chinese census data it actually has 35,000 in the town notincluding surrounding villages. Others include a coastal village in Madagascar which falling rain claimed had an altitude of 360 metres when it is clearly barely above sea level. The site is 15 years out of date and I've seen it used by lesser informed individuals to reference articles which is a major threat to reliability. Worst affected are Pakistan and India. I believe the community expressed concern previously about fallingrain as fialing to adhere to reliable sources. The coordinates are generally accurate but little else actually is. I propose the blacklisting of this website and the removal of links to it from all articles which I believe would be a major cleanup. The shoddy name alone is enough to think the article is false which uses it as a reference or link. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True Fallingrain.com cannot be trusted. From my own experience it is grossly unreliable website with simply false information about population, altitudes and even the names of towns/villages. Wikipedia should be a respected source of knowledge, which it cannot be with this website used as a reference in many articles. There are much more reliable statistics and sources (especially official ones), which can be used. Blocking this website and removing all links from Wikipedia would only benefit the project. - Darwinek (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got a note asking me to come here and comment on this site. I don't remember ever having used it myself. I checked however, and at this moment, 9,530 wikipedia articles have links to it.
If the suggestion is to blacklist this site, are we talking about replacing every instance where it is used with a more reliable link? That is at least 9,530 links. If this is to be done individually, by humans, and it takes a human, on average, one minute per correction, a minimum of 150 person-hours.
Never having used this site, I think I should stay neutral. If, however, it is blacklisted, I will agree to be part of an effort to look for replacement links. I'll sign on for sixty articles.
Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Geoswan. You are an old fashioned guy! 9,530 links could be removed in just a few hours using AWB or even better a bot. Nobody is going to be spending 150 hours on that job for sure!!! But the fact it is used in 9530 articles is extremely concerning in terms of reliability....

So, setting a bot to remove the URLs, without trying to replace them with more reliable links is an acceptable option? That's a relief. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bot or AWB could be used to remove the links. In a lot of cases they are used along side other sources so removing the falling rain website is in my view a case of despamming and avoiding misleading editors by exposing them to unreliable population and altitude data. The most serious cases are those though where no reliable sources are available and falling rain is used as a primary source, often to source population and other data which is unavailable. Relying on fallingrain for population and such figures (as I've myself been guilty of with Tibet for instance) as caused a major reliability problem and mass of errors and should be cleaned up and delisted asap.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Not to mention that the site still thinking it is 1995-6 still shows some closed railway lines in numerous articles and has been used as a primary source, so in effect it is giving misleading information and implies that certain railway lines and small settlements that have been abandoned still exist. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is with some concern the amount of usage of innacurate information from the site can be found in wikipedia as a 'valid source' - some time ago - the Australian project editors who had reviewed the innacuracy actually voted for and succeeded in getting an article about fallingrain afd'ed - that had been created by an editor who had over-relied upon the fallingrain source - and by any account may well still be doing so - any definite action in reducing reliance upon an unreliable source on the web would be appreciated by those who have to debate with editors who claim it is a useful source - when editors who have sufficient knowledge of context of some of the information - see it as a misleading and often incorrect source SatuSuro 16:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the site already in XLinkBot? That seems like the appropriate way to warn editors that the site contains unreliable data when they try to add it, while still allowing editorial discretion. While the RfC showed that unreliability can be a factor in blacklisting, there was little support for blacklisting merely unreliable sites absent actual spamming. Youtube is a similar unreliable site, and IIRC it's in XLinkBot, not the blacklist. Let me see: [12] Gigs (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in support of the move to remove the site from the whitelist - my understanding is it relies rather heavily on an old list which has got some circulation on the net already (the original version of Mapquest circa 1999 was based on it for non-US mapping, for instance, but more recent versions use their own mapping which is almost exactly accurate). The Fallingrain map of my own city contains towns which have never existed, misspellings/mislocations of places which do exist, a suburban boundary that is around 40 years out of date and a number of key features missing. Orderinchaos 16:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fallingrain.com is neither on the whitelist nor the blacklist. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you please put it on the blacklist. Its use in over 9,000 articles should make that an important consideration... Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please file your request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/02&oldid=1044024183"