MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/05

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


Approved Requests

Green County Indian's County Web Site

It seems the web site run by the Green County government is on the blacklist. This whole issue should be reviewed (it is a county-run web site), but barring that, I'd like to have greenecountyindiana.com/attractions/viaduct_aka_the_tulip_tressle added to the white list so that it can be used as a proper reference on the Tulip Viaduct page.--P Todd (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This page has details of how the page got onto the blacklist. More here. I am minded to allow this request but will leave open for a few days in case others have something to chip in. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 Done Stifle (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

MoneyWeek: Michael O'Leary profile

Please whitelist:

  • Lewis, Jane (2006-10-19). "Michael O'Leary: the outrageous Irish airline entrepeneur". Moneyweek. Retrieved 2010-03-07.

so that it can be used as a reference on Michael O'Leary (Ryanair), Ryanair, Tillingdale, et al. The article contains information about O'Leary's business history including those prior to his becoming CEO of Ryanair. Note that the URL is fudged to allow this request to be filed. —Sladen (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you put the url you want to be whitelisted in nowiki-tags, or remove the http:// from the beginning so we know where to look. Also, is this a reliable source for that information? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
s/honeyweek/moneyweek/: http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/michael-oleary-the-outrageous-irish-airline-entrepeneur.aspx —Sladen (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 Done Stifle (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

kfantransmittertour.co.cc/index.html

Please whitelist the page so that it can be used on KFAN (AM). A previous request from an IP states:

it is the new (relocated) home of the defunct geocities pages created and maintained by the former Chief Engineer of the stations which the articles are about. The information contained at that site has been researched and presented by the individual who maintained and supervised the technical operations of the two radio stations under discussion. This person has first-hand knowledge of the subjects, having been employed by the owner of the stations in the position responsible for proper and legal operation and maintenance.

This is a primary source, rather than a reliable secondary source, but it includes photographs and technical information not available on the station's official site, and does not appear to carry advertising. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

plus Added (\bkfantransmittertour\.co\.cc\b (i.e., the whole site). I presume this is going to be used as a reference for something. This indeed seems to be the original/only copy of this page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

songr.co.cc

It is the official site of Songr (Windows software for searching music), but it looks like co.cc domains are blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiufo (talk • contribs) 07:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be the official site indeed. plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tunisia.com

Please whitelist:

  • www.tunisia.com/tunisia/travel/star-wars-tunisia

There is useful information on the page which would serve as an appropriate external link for articles such as Tattooine. Granted, it's not the most reliable source in the world, but it provides a good, comprehensive, and interesting collection of information about the various Star Wars sites in Tunisia, which is why I think it would qualify for WP:EL. --Elonka 23:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I am inclined to approve this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Stifle (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00032012.html

Alot of info in article that i need to cite to majorly expand To the Sky page to recreate with more info to avoid another deleation. STAT- Verse 04:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am going to add this. plus Added --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/x-6928-Houston-Page-One-Examiner~y2010m4d20-Houston-Police-Chief-issues-decree-on-Gay-Pride-Parade-responding-to-Mayor-memo?cid=edition-rss-Houston

I'd like to have this page listed if possible for an additional reference History of the Houston Police Department. Didn't think this was website that was blacklisted, is there a place where i can find out why for future references? so to speak.--Hourick (talk) 06:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I did not answer the other question. Basically, examiner.com is a website where anyone can create an account (with minimal or no scrutiny), publish documents (which can be reliable, but generally would fail our reliable sources guideline, or can even be scraped or copied, or copyrighted) and link that from wherever one wants (and a high traffic webpage like Wikipedia is a good place to start ...). Every time someone follows your link you earn money, not because the information is good, peer reviewed, but just because the link is followed.
Although other sites generally have editors who earn money when their information is well linked-to or followed (and we do occasionally see such people or their organisations link to their site, though such editors and organisations tend to be careful), these pay-per-view type of sites (like examiner.com, associated content, lulu, etc. etc.) give that power to 'the man in the street', which is a huge spam incentive which is almost impossible to control.
It should be noted that a lot of the info (but certainly not all) on examiner.com can be found from better sources as well, and where it is unique sometimes one has to ask if the information is worthy of inclusion for Wikipedia anyway. And much is of questionable reliability.
I hope this explains a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It surely does clarify quite a bit, and I will take care to see if I can find a reference other than this site, but I have found that it has articles that are hard to find any other way. Thanks for answering! BTW: you might put that in a macro, I'm sure you will get that asked again in the future!--Hourick (talk) 09:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Two links for St. Patrick's Day

hubpages.com/hub/Orange-on-St-Patricks-Day

This article, written by a staff member of HubPages (see their "elite" page at /elite/), is to be used as another source of information for wearing orange on St. Patrick's Day. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com/examiner/x-34698-Tuscaloosa-History-Examiner~y2010m3d16-Wear-Orange-on-St-Patricks-Day

This article, written by a staffed member of Examiner.com, is to be used as another source of information for wearing orange on St. Patrick's Day. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 21:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Though I expect that there are better sources for this information (as in, properly peer reviewed information; though I did not look for that), plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The information is regarding account of an emergent tradition from multiple locations across the US, so unfortunately this is as yet the best that can be done BUT they are both written by staffed writers. Thank you very much. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

www.commonpurpose.org.uk/about/governance/david-bell

Added per request from Stephen B Streater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a source for David Bell (publisher). Guy (Help!) 08:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Denied Requests

canadianfinancialdiy.blogspot.com

could you please whitelist this site so that I can add an external link in the article Canadian tax preparation software for personal use. I cannot fathom why my blog is on your blacklist (nor can I actually find it in either the Global or Local black lists for that matter). The link I wish to add in particular is * [canadianfinancialdiy.blogspot.com/2010/04/review-and-ratings-of-canadian-online.html CanadianFinancialDIY reviews and rates online tax preparation software for 2009 taxes]. The link is to unique original content I created - no one else has actually bothered to test the software products as I have. Reasons for the reliability of my review: published and explicit assessment method; detailed comments which a reader is able to verify for him or her self. It is similar to, but for the above reason, better than other external links to reviews already found in the Wikipedia article. cheers, Jean Lespérance--Lesperancje (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done See WP:COI and WP:Reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

adding a reference on Black Jesus disambiguation

In the interest of being thorough I feel a link to http://encycloped.iadrama.tica.com/Black_Jesus should be allowed, so the following line can be added to the Black Jesus disambiguation page:

please don't delete this request, it's not vandalism!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.242.111 (talk • contribs)

Do you want to use this as a source?? Alike here, encylopediadramatica.com does fail the reliable sources guideline as well. no Declined --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

petitions.number10.gov.uk/dontdisconnectus/

I would like to add this to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TalkTalk as a reference to the company's campaign against the Digital EConomy bill. Site is a UK government site. Debz 82 (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That is either a primary source and would not prove a thing, or it is a call for the petition. Please find independent sourcing for this, otherwise it is not even worth mentioning in the article. no Declined; I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

squidoo.com/Dr_Ambedkar_Visionary

I am requesting that this article: www.squidoo.com/Dr_Ambedkar_Visionary be whitelisted.

This article provides important spiritual and historical information about Dr. Ambedkar, Buddhism and the Dalits in India.

It will be valuable to the articles on Dr. Ambedkar, Buddhism, Dalits, Sangharakshita and Dharmachari Subhuti.

Zhana21 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Squidoo.com pages:
  • Have no editorial oversight and are essentially self-published
  • Fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources
  • Offer financial incentives to authors to increase page views.
 Denied Stifle (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

ezinearticles.com/?The-Bay-Tourism-Association&id=4180706

I am requesting that this article: ezinearticles.com/?The-Bay-Tourism-Association&id=4180706 be whitelisted. Information in the article that I need to cite in minor edit to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morecambe. Cafbar (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 Denied due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

yfrog.com/0pmtvnhdj

photo taken of new mtvn hd logo from television. not near good enough quality to be used for article but talk page discussion ongoing regarding the channels name. this image could be used to confirm channel name. purely for use on the [[[MTVNHD]] talk page chocobogamer mine 00:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

 Denied, just upload the image. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Immediate Actions by the Romanian Government in an Accident in Singapore

Please white list this link: h t t p ://w w w . p e t i t i o n o n l i n e c o m/romsgacc/petition.html would like to add it to the reference on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silviu_Ionescu about Online peition. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald2010 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ronald, we don't link to petitions. See the External Links Guideline and especially the Wikipedia is Not a Soapbox or Means of Promotion Policy. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This petition was already closed. It is not for linking there for people to sign the petition, it is linking there for people who want to see what the text of the petition is about. Thank you. Please reconsider. Otherwise, can you please suggest another way ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.53.23 (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
  • no Declined, obviously inappropriate. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

uccp-auec.co.cc

Please whitelist this URL (uccp-auec.coc.cc) as this URL is used by the UCCP-Alabang United Evangelical Church as its official website. The link will be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mintinlupa_City entry under Churches.202.7.209.160 (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The only reasonable place for this link would be on UCCP-Alabang United Evangelical Church. On the page you suggest (do I see correctly that it does not exist yet), a wikilink to UCCP-Alabang United Evangelical Church could then be included, but it does not belong on the page where you want to include it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 Denied Stifle (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

investmentcalculator.co.cc

I found that this website is useful for the general population to do investment calculation and wish to add it at external links of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment however I think the co.cc makes me unable to put it on. I say it is useful because it is simple, unlike other investment calculators which are flooded with inflation, expected salary increase etc inputs which most of the population don't really know what to put in. I believe this website can show and educate the general population the power of investment and how simple the calculation actually is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walxyer (talk • contribs) 04:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

We are not the yellow pages, and links to online calculators of any type violate that policy. If you need an online calculator, you can use Google (or include it in the open directory already linked), if you need to explain how investment calculations work you can write about it in Wikipedia. So, unless the calculator is notable enough for an own article (where it then would be needed as an external link), I would decline this request. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments:
  • This site does not appear in a Google search, possibly indicating that it's been blacklisted by Google for link-spamming.[1][2]
  • You've ignored 4 warnings in the past for link-spamming.[3]
  • co.cc is a redirect domain similar to tinyurl.com; we blacklist these on sight since they've been used by spammers to circumvent the blacklist.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 11:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
no Declined: this request
 Defer to Global blacklist: for 9 other Walxyer domains.
Reference:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Examiner.com

I've used examiner.com/x-26018-SE-Michigan-Islamic-Examiner~y2010m3d5-Muslims-grieve-for-beloved-leader--Aminah-Asslimi-a-leader-in-the-American-Muslim-landscape as a reference for the life (and death) of Aminah Assilmi. Can we whitelist that one? Anyone know why it was blacklisted? – Toon 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would expect there to be better sources for this information. Examiner.com was blacklisted for various reasons, one of them being that most information is not reliable. Especially for the (recent) death of a BLP the sources should be of higher quality. I do get quite some hits on this on Google, may I suggest to find a better source? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh really? I wasn't aware it was unreliable. I'll go hunting then. Cheers, – Toon 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
The site contains user submitted content with different degrees of reliability (which is generally the case for user submitted content). But there is more, including abuse, spam incentives, etc. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • no Declined due to past abuse and lack of reliability. A better source surely exists. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

nzartconference.cjb.net

Please unblock the above site.

There will be reference material on this site relating to Amateur Radio following the technical fourms which will be of interest to the general Radio Amateur.

Thanks Doug.

Dougcooke2004 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

How is this a reliable source? Fletsi (aklt) 11:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 Denied due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

guyharveyinc.com/Biography.php

The Guy Harvey article currently has a ref pointing to guyharveyinc.com/home.html which is a dead link.

A better target subpage for the material being cited with that ref would be guyharveyinc.com/Biography.php

Can this subpage be whitelisted? Once done, I can update the ref to point to the biographical information. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes? No? Maybe? Comments? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
The site was blacklisted for spamming; this page seems reasonable to whitelist and I'll approve this request in a few days unless a reason not to arises. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 Closed
Not a problem, I understand; in fact, one of the spam reports shown in the log that lead to the blacklisting was one that I had submitted.
However, I think that I can withdraw this sub-page whitelisting request now. I've now found a handful of third-party sites that provide this same biographical information, which could be used instead of whitelisting this page from his official site. The additional sources are press releases, so still primary sources; but they're externally published on PR Newswire and News Blaze, so no SBL issues. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Web Based Training DA-20/100 Katana

Please whitellist:

  • wbtda20katana.co.cc

It's a personal project where people can learn how to fly the Diamond Aircraft Da-20 Katana for free. It's a Web Based Training used nowadays by my university in Spain to train new students. The articles about the company Diamond Aircraft would benefit of that website. The link to the pages I am requesting to be added are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Aircraft_Industries and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_DA20 --84.78.207.51 (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 13:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The university where I did my studies is using this WBT since I published it in 2007 (www.cesda.com) and I contacted with Diamond-Air (www.diamond-air.at) who told me "you did a very god job!". You are free to contact both of them anytime and ask for my project.--84.78.207.51 (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a student paper; I am inclined to decline this request but will wait a few days in case there are independent opinions. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
It was my Final Degree Project in my 4 year grade in Commercial Aviation in the first University of Aviation in Spain and in Europe. I am now working as an airline pilot and found it interesting to share my knoweledge with people who wants to be a pilot and who will fly this airplane. And I want to share it for free as I think that knoweledge is culture and culture must be free.--84.78.207.51 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
You are quite successfully sharing it by inserting it onto your own website. Wikipedia, however, has standards for what may be used as a source and guidelines on external links. These do not appear to be met here, and this request is no Declined. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Examiner.com review


Can i get this page --> examiner.com/x-26357-SXSW-Examiner~y2010m3d22-SXSW-Party-Review-Perez-Hiltons-One-Night-in-Austin-party-featured-Snoop-Dogg-VV-Brown <-- whitelisted please, it's the only link with venue and date etc. i could find. It is a review so it's reliable as the person was actually there. The Perez Hilton site doesn't even give the venue and date even though they hosted the party. They just say 'Saturday'. I need it for the Nobody's_Daughter#Tour_dates section to verify that they attended. Thank you. Beautiful&Dying (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

  • So it's a fact so trivial that you have to go to examiner.com to find it? What makes you think it's significant enough for inclusion? Guy (Help!) 18:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  •  Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hellotxt Entry

I am requesting that my site Hellotxt, a social aggregator, be white listed. I am told that because we redirect URLs our URL is blocked. This makes it so that I cannot update a proper entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RoRoHello/hellotxt.com)-- although I have seen many other sites that are the same with no problems in their listings. User:RoroHello

As was explained on the blacklisting, you will need a specific link, e.g. hellotxt.com/about.htm. The whole site is not going to be de-blacklisted or fully whitelisted as it is basically a redirect service, which use is not allowed on Wikipedia. Therefore, only specific links will be whitelisted. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dirk, thanks for the reply. I just tried posting the link to our blog's "About Us" page and it blocked me. How do I go about showing you that link for the request? -- Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoRoHello (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you actually tell us what the link was? Leave out the http://www part and it'll post here fine. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

blog.hellotxt.com/about-us/

-Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by RoRoHello (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

hello Internet gods? any news? User:RoroHello

  •  Denied. Whitelisting this site will be considered if and when a trusted, high-volume editor requests it for use on an article; the userspace draft you have created at User:RoRoHello/hellotxt.com would fall to be speedily deleted if it were in the article namespace as an article about a non-notable website. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/a-817319~Movie_stars_film_in_Havre_de_Grace.html

  • This a proposal for the removal of a specific article in examiner.com
  • I wanted to link to a Baltimore Examiner article concerning the movie From Within in context of the city Havre de Grace, MD. Examiner.com seems to be blocked. This link, however, is the only available link for the written Baltimore Examiner article. This is the link: www.examiner.com/a-817319~Movie_stars_film_in_Havre_de_Grace.html. -RickNightCrawler (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Examiner.com is not the Baltimore Examiner, it is an independent website with limited to no editorial oversight and where users are offered financial incentives to increase page views.  Not done per WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ipetition web page to stop the TV show Pretty Wild linked to the Pretty Wild Article

Would like to you to consider whitelisting this page on ipetition, in order to cite it at the Pretty Wild article, the link would only be to this web page -ipetitions.com/petition/prettywild//petition to cancel unethical E! Entertainment show "Pretty Wild" - on Pretty Wild, I see that the ipetition domain is blacklisted but the article makes the point that the petition to stop this show was started soon after it aired for the first time and having a link that shows the petition created for that specific purpose adds credibility to that specific claim and also illustrates the action taken by the viewers to dissent while not involving the rest of the ipetition domain from the blacklist --Cleaner_TV (talk) --CleanerTV (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Declined, as we do not generally report on petitions unless they first establish notability independently. (For that same reason, I have already removed the text from the article in question.) Note that the simple fact that a petition exists is not sufficient to determine notability; the petition must become noteworthy enough to gain recognition beyond those who endorse it. --Ckatzchatspy 07:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)O.K but I have seen the petition line added a couple of times so I won't be suprised if its added again, I think that if 200 people sign a public petition to take some show off the air after it has only aired one time, and given the controversial nature of the program in question (reality show about subjects with criminal involment) that is mentioned prominently on the article it would make sense to at least mention the issue of the petition list by viewers, but is your call. Also, it was mentioned in various forums that the page was in fact created before the show aired, which begs the question if eliminating all mentions of controversy just makes it a ad by the channel to promote the show.Just sayin'Thanks.--CleanerTV (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

no Declined Not notable, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

www.associatedcontent.com/article/51596/my_interview_with_kat_von_d_of_miami.html?cat=33

I hereby request that the interview I created be allowed to be added to Kat Von D's profile page, along with the other interviews on her page.

Wikipedia can benefit from this addition as I have garnered high traffic from it on the link provided, and would like to share it with others who may also be interested in reading this article. Thank you for your consideration.SarahLee23 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

no Declined for the very reasons that associatedcontent is blacklisted; inherent conflict-of-interest issues and failure to meet reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Also see 'Earning Money'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Interview with Miracle Laurie at Examiner.com

The alert triggered when I tried to save a page with an interview Examiner.com indicated that I can just request a specific page be allowed. Since this is an interview with Miracle Laurie, and it looks legit, can it be unblocked? The odd thing is that the url was already in that article before I edited it; I just added more material from it, and changed the ref tag into a ref name tag in order to cite it twice. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the complete URL (you can add some spaces here to be able to save this post)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The url is: h t t p : / / w w w . examiner.com/x-585-Entertainment-Examiner~y2009m9d29-A-Conversation-with-Dollhouse-doll-Miracle-Laurie. Nightscream (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Due to past abuse we'd normally only whitelist a link if it provides a reliable source for something not covered elsewhere. There is no shortage of interviews, after all. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Stifle (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a source for stuff not covered elsewhere. It's a good-length interview that provides information on her life and career. I wouldn't know where to find the material that's in it elsewhere. Nightscream (talk) 03:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

ezinearticles.com/?Seedbox---Solution-For-Those-Who-Prefer-Ultra-High-Speed-Without-Compromising-Quality&id=3712035

Please whitelist: I got something interesting about seedbox here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seedbox. But one of the link associated with references section is invalid. Please have a look and whitelist the page so that it can be live. It looks very good article on seedbox and deserve to be associated with wiki. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panki1vik (talk • contribs) 08:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

What makes this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 13:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 Denied due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

mehfiltube.magnify.net

I tried to link to mehfiltube just to find out that it is still blacklisted. The fear seems to be that mehfiltube host's copyrighted content, while in fact ANY recently created work is copyrighted by someone.All of mehfiltube's content is hosted by google and youtube.Mehfiltube just indexes videos that have been uploaded by the musicans themselves and/or they are all welcomed by the musicans as a free promotion of their music.Remember - this is not popular music and musicans are struggling to find some audience at all.Youtube is seen by many ICM musicans as a plattform to get known by international audiences.Yet the search on youtube totally sucks.The related videos youtube finds are often cats & dogs or even disturbing stuff.That is where mehfiltube steps in and provides content related browsing of the artists videos and these efforts are duely appreciated by the artists themselves.Mehfiltubians always add missing data to topic titles, such as missing raag names....etc. Mehfiltube's focus is on not so well known upcoming musicans that hardly anyone has heard of. Mehfiltube list's classical and semiclassical music in a way that no other site does - it allows for time raaga based browsing by using a flash interface.All contend can be browsed strctly ordered by raag, instrument and genre. It also ensures that all content is relevant through a peer filtering system of hundreds members that have to agree if a video is fit for mehfiltube. It is not one of these sites where bots just add content randomly. It is a site of great educational value (read article)[1] and it seems to have been blacklisted by people with little understanding.There is also a flag/report button so in the case a video is linked to without consent, reporting it will disable that link on magnify.net inmediatly. This has been discussed before and it has been promised to whitelist the site, but it's still blacklisted. Another important reason to whitelist mehfiltube is that it tries to find a balance between Pakistani classical music and Indian classical music.This is very important as both countries where more then once at war - yet they share a religion/musical heritage/culture and language. It is mehfiltube and sarangi.info that are focusing on this sort of balance - most sites on ICM seem to ignore Pakistani Classical Music at all.There is tendency among some Indian wikipedians to bully anything from Pakistan "out of the way" and label ANY contribution or link from Pakistan on a shared heritage subject as "Spam". This is wrong! Please whitelist or you may also blacklist google and youtube [[[Special:Contributions/95.223.187.171|95.223.187.171]] (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)]

This has actually been blocked for spamming; it may be unblocked if a trusted, high-volume editor requests it for a specific page or group of pages. Furthermore, this page is for requesting one or a few named pages from a blocked site be permitted; requests to remove a site from the list entirely go to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.  Not done. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

petitions.number10.gov.uk/PSRyde/

petitions.number10.gov.uk/PSRyde/ - I wish to use this petition to back up the fact that over 3,000 signatures were collected on the petition to save PS Ryde. As the title is currently blacklisted I've had to come up with a bodge to get around the blacklisting. It would be much better to be able to actually cite the petition using the {{cite web}} template. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a primary source, and the number does not actually mean anything without an external review of the voting. Seems to me pretty much the reason why this site was blacklisted in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is a primary source, however, the existence of the petition is mentioned in a reliable secondary source. When that source went to press, over 2,000 signatures had been collected, but the petition was still open. What I really want to be able to quote is the exact number of signatures on the petition, which has now closed. As the ship is now (being) scrapped, the mention of the petition cannot be seen as being biased in favour of the PS Ryde Preservation Socitey or in favour of the preservation of the ship. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Then cite the secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
But the secondary sources do not give the exact figure. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Then it's not a significant fact. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
no Declined Stifle (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com 2


I would also like to use examiner.com as a source on the upcoming book by Suzanne Collins, rumored to be called "The Victors". The previous two books (The Hunger Games and Catching Fire) were enormously popular, and were both National Bestsellers.GrandMattster 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please add tp://www.metal-observer.com its a great website

Rumoured? I am sorry, we need reliable sources, especially for rumors. And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But could you be a bit more specific which document you'd like whitelisted? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The exact site is http://www. examiner . com/x-11219-Denver-Young-Adult-Fiction-Examiner~y2009m10d4-Suzanne-Collins-improves-on-The-Hunger-Games-in-sequel-Catching-Fire. GrandMattster 19:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Recommend no action. The source says nothing more than that there is a rumor as to the name of the new book. If there was a reported substance, it's conceivable I'd have recommended a courtesy whitelisting, to give you the chance to discuss it, but this is a lost cause, the only way it could be used is if nobody notices. However, if you find other examiner.com pages with stronger arguments for using, don't hesitate to ask here, and I'll try to help see that you get a much faster response. --Abd (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Stifle (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

www.associatedcontent.com/article/2808524/donell_jones_lets_fans_know_whats_up.html

I was trying to update the entry on Donell Jones after completing an interview with him on Friday, but this link is blocked. I talked with him directly and have a recorded interview so I'm sure it's him. I understand that sometimes AC may not fact check, but I've done many interviews with celebs, and this one is valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamontiel (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

no Declined, this is just why this is blacklisted, associatedcontent is not a reliable source, you have a conflict of interest, and associatedcontent pays (also you) well for being linked to. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Also see 'Earning Money'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You say that AssociatedContent is not a reliable source even though the reporter, myself, talked with Donell Jones directly to get the information. Your site had the wrong year for him. You should be happy I corrected it for you. And just so we're clear, ANY Web site on the Internet has ads and money attached to it so if you're going to remove every site with monetary gain you'd have no links at all. This is a prime example of why I don't use Wikipedia. I just came on here to correct your year. Oh, and just so we're clear, there are other links to interviews written by me for other publications on Wikipedia. I will make sure to delete them as well. If those are okay to stay, then this one should be, too. Don't punish the reporter because you feel the site is "unreliable." The only difference between my interview here and my interview with other publications is the domain name. But since you want to blacklist a link, I'll change the birth year back to the incorrect information that Wikipedia has. Trust me, I won't help this site again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamontiel (talk • contribs)

I'm happy that you corrected it, but I am sure there are better sources for the information. And I explained why this site is blacklisted, and the others are not. That you have a conflict of interest is a lesser problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm shaking my head because you just said I could find a "better source." What better source is there than speaking directly with the artist I wanted to make the correction for. Now I understand why so many textbook, magazine and newspaper companies have told me upfront not to use your site as a reference. Even when you have a resource that clearly has the facts, you'd rather debate about the site it came from instead of the facts. I'm definitely going to write about this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamontiel (talk • contribs) 21:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bennett Engineering: Lowry Centre Footbridge

Please whitelist:

  • www.bennettmg.co.uk/Project_MS_Lowry_1.aspx

I would like to reference the information contained on this page for the Salford Quays lift bridge article. Roobarb! (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

How is this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


Withdrawn, Invalid, Malformed or Otherwise Past Relevance

FreeRepublic webmaster quote

The FreeRepublic article, right near the bottom, has an uncited quote from its webmaster Jim Robinson over his personal feelings about a potential Presidential candidate, and how the website will be active in disparaging said candidate should he receive the nomination for President. The quote is real and you can see it here ( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2440862/posts?page=25#25 ). The reason this quote is significant is because it backs up many allegations of mistreatment from members who believe the website discriminates against those who do not conform with what the webmaster believes. There's an entire section of the article devoted to the mistreatment of members. Even if the quote is not included verbatim, I feel a link to this specific post he made would further substantiate those claims, and is significant enough to note. I'd like to ask for that specific link to be allowed, but not FreeRepublic as a whole to be unblocked. Kelseypedia (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to request a whitelist for the following to fill a cite for another uncited quote. This link ( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2101737/posts ) shows that the webmaster did indeed endorse McCain near the end of the 2008 elections - something which was also near the end of teh article and unsourced. I will see if I can find his post about Bush. Kelseypedia (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  • If it's not covered by reliable independent sources then it's not significant and should simply be removed. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Stale
    Guy (Help!) 13:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Interview on justjared.buzznet.com

There is an ongoing edit curfuffle at Miranda Kerr concerning her ethnic background. Numerous sites around the web list one thing while this interview done by justjared (justjared.buzznet.com/2009/09/11/miranda-kerrs-biggest-runway-mishap-flying-shoe/) contradicts that information and appears to set the record straight from the mouth of Miranda Kerr. I don't know anything about justjared or its history on WP other than discovering it's blacklisted (when I tried to add the reference) but perhaps they can be trusted for an interview? I've searched the internet for a couple of hours now (egads!) trying to find any other source for either side that appears definitive and have come up empty. I see here that a similar request was approved but not with a lot of confidence. I would like to remove the contentious part from the article and be done with it but I'm guessing it'll just keep popping up since a lot of people seem to really care about her ethnic background. If this one page were whitelisted maybe the issue would calm down. SQGibbon (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What makes that site a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The site in general? Probably nothing, but I'm not that familiar with it either way (other than its reputation here on Wikipedia). An interview though? While it could be completely made up I've seen no indication that this has been a problem with interviews they've claimed to have done in the past. But then I haven't seen them defended on this count either. I would think that just transcribing an interview could be considered as separate to their reliability as a source otherwise. SQGibbon (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 Stale Stifle (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm still interested in using it as a source. Currently the reference is hidden in the text and is being used by editors to justify retaining the current claims. While activity surrounding the issue has certainly died down it would be nice to be able to see a conclusion to all this. SQGibbon (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

tvrage (attempts at blacklist evasion)

Hopefully, this is a one-off event... an IP posted the URL "http://69.64.63.153/redirect.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tvrage.com%2Fglee" (with descriptor "Glee Episode Guide, Previews, cast, Guest Stars & More") on the Glee series page. That URL redirects directly to TV Rage's Glee page, while the bare IP ("69.64.63.153") simply says "It works!" Looks like a deliberate attempt to hack around the blacklist, and yet another reason to deny any whitelist requests. --Ckatzchatspy 22:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've requested that URL redirector be blacklisted on meta. MER-C 02:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

sajjadalifanclub.co.cc

1- this was previously run by friend of Sajjad Ali the pop singer of Pakistan. now it is officially maintained by his younger brother LUCKY ALI also musician, singer, song writer of Pakistan

2- this site is directly monitered by Sajjad ALi. and this should be whitelisted previously blacklisted on wiki site.

3- this is not a spam site you can check it yourself. its is regularly maintained and updated officially.

MUHAMMAD FARHAN SALEEM 02:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC) [—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefsab (talk • contribs) ]

1) It's a fansite
2) You present no argument as to why this site is useful to Wikipedia
3) You listed this in requests past relevance, so I'm assuming you don't want this actioned
no Declined MER-C 04:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=OU_m6B3pgnUC&pg=PA105&dq=mehfil+tube&cd=1#v=onepage&q=mehfil%20tube&f=false
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/05&oldid=1017518059"