Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/03

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


Approved requests

php-unit-test.batcave.net on PHP Unit Testing Framework

php-unit-test.batcave.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

For my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP_Unit_Testing_Framework I have have to move the page from http://php-unit-test.sourceforge.net to php-unit-test.batcave.net as Sourceforge no longer enables one to edit web pages. Just need the Official web site in the External links to change the URL to http:// php-unit-test.batcave.net/


Denied requests

free-comic-book-day-what-a-haul

Please add the following page:

1. examiner.com/article/free-comic-book-day-what-a-haul

2. For this article: Free Comic Book Day

3. It is useful because it supports the statement "However, successful Free Comic Book Day events in 2005 and 2006 did not have specific date tie-ins to comics-related movie openings, proving that the event is more than capable of standing on its own, while the 2004 event was linked with the July opening of the second Spider-Man movie and was deemed less successful for falling outside of the regular school year." within the Free Comic Book Day article.

4. It directly supports that statement and it includes comments that support things within the FCBD article supported by other references (such as the distributor and purposes of FCBD), which would serve to verify the reliability of the article. Whitelisting requests for Examiner.com pages are usually denied because they might be written by the person they are about, but this article is about an event and not a person. I am a long time editor with no previous ties to Examiner.com or the author Robert Sodaro; I am only trying to add a reference to a sentence within the Free Comic Book Day article that needs one. Spidey104 14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this request formatted correctly? Is there anything I can do to help the reviewer with their analysis of my request? One week from today my life will be drastically changing and I won't be able to respond to requests for more information very quickly. Spidey104 17:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I read Common requests when I posted this and that's why I wrote what I did in #4. Is there something I didn't address that I need to? Spidey104 18:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
As Examiner.com has little editorial control and anyone can submit content, it is not considered a reliable source. Is there any particular evidence that that is not the case in this particular instance? Stifle (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
All statements made in the examiner article can be confirmed by other references used in the Free Comic Book Day article, except for the statement I quoted above in #3. That is why I want this particular article to be whitelisted to serve as a supporting reference for that quote. That information was added a long time ago and with many news articles no longer posted online it is, unfortunately, the only one remaining to still have that information about the lack of success of the 2004 FCBD. If the rest of the article is confirmed by other sources wouldn't that count as reliable? Spidey104 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
If alternative sources exist that aren't online, why not use those? There is no requirement that sources be online. Also remember archive.org is useful for recovering news articles that the news site has stopped publishing. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It has been 6 years; I don't remember those sources anymore. Remembering that useful piece of information is easy, whereas remembering exactly where it came from is very difficult. Regardless of those alternative sources that are basically impossible to find I believe I already established the reliability of this source which was the main concern. So can it be whitelisted now or are there other problems I need to address? Spidey104 00:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
A search on archive.com did not bring up any useful content. Can this be whitelisted? I believe I have adequately shown the source to be reliable because it is confirmed (except for the one statement I want it as a source for) by other sources. Spidey104 13:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
These might be useful;
--Hu12 (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Those are helpful (I will add them to the FCBD article when I can), but none of them support the statement "the 2004 event was [...] deemed less successful for falling outside of the regular school year." So we're not quite there yet, but that does further support my link as reliable. Spidey104 03:12, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
So, is there any progress on my request?? Spidey104 00:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
So, is there any progress on my request?? Spidey104 01:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought this was already closed, but as you seem to want a final judgment, I will provide it.

The examiner article claims "that particular event wasn't considered as successful as it occurred outside of the regular school year." It "wasn't considered" by whom? Why should we take the author at his word? Is it just his opinion? He doesn't say who didn't consider the event successful, other than a making a vague and unsubstantiated reference to "a fair amount of press." That "fair amount of press" is what should be referenced, not this examiner article. Sorry, I can't fathom how that examiner article could possibly be considered as a reliable source for such a claim. no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

So why couldn't you have just said that two months earlier? I'm not arguing with your assessment because your point is completely valid, but I am complaining about how long it took for you to say it. Spidey104 21:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

bodybuilding-blog.org on Phil Heath page

bodybuilding-blog.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

  • www.bodybuilding-blog.org/others/phil-heath-story-personal-reflection-mr-olympia-meteoric-rise-top-bodybuilding
  • I have read /Common requests

I am requesting to use www.bodybuilding-blog.org/others/phil-heath-story-personal-reflection-mr-olympia-meteoric-rise-top-bodybuilding for article on Phil Heath page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Heath.

This link support a lot of details about Phil Heath. Also provide information about Mr. Olympia meteoric rise top.

It's an interesting blog post, but I am disturbed by the anonymous nature of the author ("admin") and the lack of any information on the site concerning who writes this blog. The blog site seems to be nothing more than a conduit to another site for purchasing steroid supplements.
WP:ELNO prevents us from using blogs as references unless the blog is written by a recognized authority on the subject, and I can't see any indication that this is the case here. I'm inclined to decline this request unless the author can be identified as an authoritative source. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
no Declined due to non-response. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com Article about Nate Silver

examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

  • www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for-wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles
  • I have read /Common requests

I am requesting to use www.examiner.com/article/the-far-left-turns-to-nate-silver-for-wisdom-on-the-polls?cid=db_articles for the article on FiveThirtyEight. I am editing his page to include discussion of the criticism he received from conservative political pundits in the last few weeks leading up to the presidential election on November 6, 2012. The criticism was about his predictions being overly biased towards Barack Obama. The article linked was written by one of the people criticizing his work who also put out his own prediction of the election that was ultimately very biased towards Mitt Romney. Other links only discuss political pundits who criticized his work, and they were not written by an individual who made his own predictions of the election, so this would provide a strong primary source reference for the section. I have no ties whatsoever to the author of the linked article, I think his analysis of the polls and prediction of the election was shoddy and idiotic, and there is no other way to link to this primary source other than through this URL. Mike.wasikowski (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of people who criticized Nate Silver made their own predictions. Even among conservative journalists, I don't see anything particularly notable about the author of this article that it needs publicizing in Wikipedia. no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

officialworldrecord.com World Records Site

This site isn't a spam site, only publish a world records and, from 2012 spring, this link was blacklisted. We can't understand the reasons because this site is in to blacklist but we will be apreciate the change of this status. We only want publish this site as one more about world record results. Many Thanks.Marçalorri (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

It was blocked due to persistant spamming, abuse, block evasion and blacklist evasion. None of those are signs of good faith. Apparently you tried to add have discovered it was blocked. see "We can't " and " We only ..." clearly indicates your involved with this site, please see WP:NOPAY. In addition to failing Wikipedias inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to site-representativ/owner/agent requests. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Particular Rakeback.com Article on Poker Alice

I was attempting to add this particular article as a reference for the Senator William J. Bulow bio since it provided a picture of the two together while he was granting her pardon. I never found any other pages with the picture. Mdlawmba (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? Mdlawmba (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. That photo is attributed to the South Dakota State Historical Society/State Archives. Why not just use the original source instead? The photo is here: http://sddigitalarchives.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/photos/id/8768/rec/2 ~Amatulić (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

thepetitionsite.com

thepetitionsite.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com PE2011 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Care2 petition: www.thepetitionsite.com/843/838/964/spare-oxen-bill-and-lou-from-slaughter/

This source is needed as a cite for a proposed addition of text--to be inserted in an entry on Green Mountain College--which has been the subject of very intense dispute and debate, highlighted in bold: “The college's decision prompted opposition from townspeople, animal rights supporters and tens of thousands of online petitioners worldwide who signed a petition stating that the two oxen, after working for 10 years, deserve to retire in a sanctuary.” The bolded proposal, which is now acceptable to the various participants in the dispute (see Talk), is intended to mitigate concerns of WP: Undue.

The GMC entry describes the controversy surrounding the college's decision to slaughter two oxen, Bill and Lou, and the above addition describes an articulated rationale against slaughter. As noted above, the proposal is now acceptable to all dispute participants, which makes source citation the only remaining issue--if the care2 petition can be whitelisted, the current content dispute will be fully resolved. The proposal is a neutralized summary of the following text in the care2 petition:

Please encourage Green Mountain College to allow Bill & Lou to be adopted by the VINE Sanctuary in Vermont where they can live out the remainder of their lives. They've worked so hard for the college for 10 years and deserve a better fate than ending up on someone's plate!

no Declined. Please read /Common requests#Petitions carefully. We don't use petition sites as references on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is also not a venue for promoting causes; see the official policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Petition sites in and of themselves are not notable and not useful as references. Reliable source coverage about a petition would be worth mentioning, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 Not done, and apologies for the long delay in response (thanks for the heads up on my talk page).
That examiner.com piece reads like marketing fluff, and indeed, it's written by a marketing person, making me wonder if there's some sort of promotional relationship between the author and NoDak. The piece doesn't seem to contain any information beyond what can be found on the company web site.
Specifically, the article NoDak Films citations 2 and 8 use those examiner.com links. Citation 2 is redundant and unnecessary, already covered by another reference. Citation 8 is used to source a statement about who contributed to a film, and that information appears to have come directly from http://www.nodakfilms.com/blog/static.php?page=List
Looking through the nodakfilms web site, especially their page http://www.nodakfilms.com/model.htm, I see nothing in the examiner.com article that isn't already found at the primary source. It's almost as if the author of the examiner article wrote it while viewing the website. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

authspot.com/short-stories/lord-of-the-flies-essay/

authspot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This links to an informative essay on William Golding's novel "The Lord of the Flies" that explains the key theme of the struggle between Ralph and Jack for the support of the boys on the island. I have read the common requests and although this is my own article, I feel that this would be a valuable external link for Lord of the Flies. The domain is blacklisted, however I was told that it is possible to make exceptions for individual pages. Akababa (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. While it is possible to make exceptions, you would have to make a really exceptional case to use a your own essay as a reference. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

www.eduvision.edu.pk

The site is very useful for its contents and offer a number of services to the students. The site will help improve many of the sections inlcuding universities of Pakistan, PMDC, Pharmacy council of Pakistan, Pakistan Engineering council and a number of other sections on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.120.104 (talk) 10:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a valid reason for white-listing. Requesting anon IP within the same spam abuse range, with no other edits than this request. See WikiProject Spam report. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

youtu.be/BU9lpFg084g

I am citing and discussing the Syrian internet blackout and require this link to be unblocked form Syria and Talk:Syria— Supuhstar * — 15:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You can use http://youtube.com/watch?v=BU9lpFg084g instead. no Declined MER-C 03:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

examiner.com

The article I wish to link is: examiner.com/article/hoekstra-reconsiders-decides-to-challenge-stabenow

I read the Common Requests and it looks like the issues regarding examiner.com are more closely related to editorial policy then outright spam.

This particular article is non-controversial in content and is being used as a replacement for a dead link that was available in a better known publication: [1]. The Detroit News routinely removes articles after a short period of time. The content is reliable, but the examiner has preserved it's content longer.

It should be made available for the article, United States Senate election in Michigan, 2012. Currently, the citation is referenced in a non-linked form.--Libertyguy (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Searching both Google News and Google Web for "hoekstra stabenow", I find plenty of references corroborating the statements made in that July 2012 examiner.com article. The outcome of Hoekstra's challenge is now well-known history.
Furthermore, the only thing in the article that referenced the examiner.com article was a simple statement that Hoekstra qualified for the ballot, which seems a bit out of context given the subject of the examiner.com article. The fact that he was on the ballot is a known fact, and ballot qualifications should be available on public government websites anyway.
Finally, the Peter Hoekstra article makes a statement that's basically identical to the headline of the examiner.com article; this is sourced to http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/20/did-the-gop-get-the-candidate-it-wanted-in-michigan/ — I see no reason why that wouldn't be a reasonable substitute. no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I will use this substitute.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

justjaredjr.com

I believe that www.justjaredjr.com in general should be whitelisted as it is a good source for many celebrities www.justjaredjr.com/2012/12/31/malese-jow-nationalist-magazine-cover-girl/ is a prime example of an article that would benefit as it is a great source for Malese Jow's recent interview about her new projects in her Nationalist Magazine spread. It gives specific evidence and I don't like making screenshots of the webpage and using them as a source, I'd rather have the link to the actual article. *justjaredjr.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Trustedsource123 (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Its a Blog site that aggregates its news from other sources.. here's the origional source http://www.nationalistmagazine.com/#!january-2013-/c1c0n  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Can we create a WP:PEREN type for this, do we really every so many weeks have to re-assess this, or can we just blanket ignore this from now on. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 12:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I just added a new section about aggregation sites to /Common requests. Hopefully that will help. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

crbonline.com

cbronline.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

www.cbronline.com/news/messagedirect_is_latest_messaging_directory_services_merger

Please unblock this page. This link is to replace a dead link on the Isode_Limited page.

Hannahg88 (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done This serves the same purpose and is not blacklisted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Url Shortening services

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

The main page of url shortening services (maybe also "about pages") should be whitelisted as these sites do not pose any danger by themselves, rather shortened urls using such services pose a danger of misuse. Use of such links may be useful in articles directly discussing such services in general, particular services, any of the companies operating such services (Google, Twitter, Facebook, Tinyurl), or the history of the internet. Theecomguy (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

URL redirection services have no legitimate purpose or use on Wikipedia and are blocked on all Wikimedia's 285 language projects for that very reason. The English Wikipedia is no exception. URL redirection sites are not to be usedno Declined --Hu12 (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above, the meaning are the URL shortening sites themselves rather than sites that use such services. There is no reason thet for example: www.goo.gl/ should not be blocked as it is a legitimate site, and a noteworthy one at that, however www.goo.gl/shortlink should be blocked as it is a shortened link Theecomguy (talk)

Google's official URL is google.com, not goo.gl. Additionaly, redirection URL's are against Wikipedia Policy. Closed--Hu12 (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
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.


Requests not done due to failure of requester to reply to queries

outrate.net

This domain is no longer active, but http://www.archive.org/ still has it. Nevertheless, the domain is listed as a blacklist. I intend to use the review from that defunct website for the Inch by Inch (film) article, but I guess there is no way, as long as the domain is blacklisted. --George Ho (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
outrate.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

You can still use a site as a reference, even if a working link is not possible. However, what is the exact url to the document that you want to use a sa reference? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I tried to post the exact url here, but it won't let me, archived or not. --George Ho (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
If you post it without the starting http://, it works. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Here: http://web.archive.org/web/20101126192052/http://outrate.net/?p=53 --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Examiner.com Article

Interview with Heri Joensen in The Metal Observer

Pages can not be excluded from the spam blacklist, unfortunately. Hence that the edit-notice at the top of the edit page suggests that you post the link without the preceding 'http//' (I have updated the link, is clearer than maiming the link with dots or spaces, though that was fine as well). I hope this explains.
Back in 2009 when this was blacklisted, it was mentioned that besides the plain spamming that occurred back then (multiple IPs), that the site had been discussed on our RSN board and deemed unreliable. That situation regarding reliability may have changed (as may the spam risk now be next to zero, three years after blacklisting), though you already say that you recently struck the block quote from the article .. do you now consider the quote worthy of inclusion? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I was getting a little frustrated with the spam filter when it blocked me here too. I didn't see the part about the http, but thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I would consider the quote appropriate for inclusion, as it was Heri Joensen of Týr explaining the band's 'mission' in an interview. I think this is certainly appropriate to the band's article, but we can't just lift a block quote from an interview without citing the source. Since I don't know anything about TMO's original blacklisting, and I don't frequent their web site, I really couldn't say whether removing them from the blacklist would be a good idea or not, but I don't see how linking this article could hurt anything. I'd like to include the quote with a reference to the interview linked above. Thanks again for your help with this. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot all about this, and generally others look at the whitelisting more than I do. However,  Done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

fluoridealert website on main article Fluoride Action Network

Hello

Fluoridealert.org website which is blacklisted has had a design change. due to that, few sourced links on WK Fluoride Action Network have become dead (FAN is Fluoridealert.org , and is properly linked in "External links"). I am asking for 3 links to be whitelisted within fluoridealert for the FAN WK article dead links :

1."about FAN" www DOT fluoridealert DOT org/about

2. The signed petition www DOT fluoridealert DOT org/researchers/professionals-statement/

3. FAN Advisory board www DOT fluoridealert DOT org/about/team/

Thank you.79.177.29.96 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of several recent attempts, by requesting IP and others to circumvent blacklisting by adding URL shorteners ([2][3][4]) including multiple plain text URL additions([5][6][7]). these are not signs of good faith.--Hu12 (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Well i was reading the Fluoride Action Network Wikipedia article, and was interested to see the cited sources. I was not aware it was such a felony on Wikipedia to remedy those links with short URLs to very plain and non controversial info, i mean the original sourced links were already there just were dead due to website design cange. Once one of the moderators has corrected me to come here (Whitelist page) - I came here. (i deed one more quick testing to see what is blocked which i immediately reverted myself). So please assume good faith :) Thanks109.64.13.85 (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys, still waiting for resolution. thanks109.64.9.90 (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
A single whitelist entry like \bfluoridealert\.org/(?:about|researchers)[-\/a-z]*\b would probably catch all three of those links requested, although the 'about' page should be sufficient for that article.
I don't see anything from fluoridealert.org in the whitelist already, so I'm wondering how the previous links existed. Perhaps grandfathered in from before the blacklisting. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Examiner on Nic Herron-Webb

examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I am requesting to use www.examiner.com/article/naptime-wins-fight-of-the-night-bonus and www.examiner.com/article/naptime-taps-david-knight for my article on Nic Herron-Webb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Nic_Herron-Webb.

Most of All of Herron-Webb's fights before his appearance on the Ultimate fighter have been in Alaska. I can confirm fights from other sites such as Sherdog, but they do not establish his Gym or the date he won the welterweight title. These two articles support the details that are not in the other articles. Since Alaska is off the beaten path, national publications do to give a lot of space to it. Maloneth (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Globaljihad.net article about Global Islamic Media Front

globaljihad.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I am requesting to use www.globaljihad.net/view_page.asp?id=1752. This article is about the Global Islamic Media Front and contains valuable information that other sources do not. I am creating the page for Global Islamic Media Front. This article contains links to outside sources. --Mcknzw (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

pv-magazine.com

pv-magazine.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com I discovered that this website is blacklisted while editing Toul-Rosières Solar Park article. In particular, I would like to use www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/sonnedix-closes-90-million-financing-on-24-mw-french-pv-project_100008526/ and www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/france--sonnedix-acquires-24-mw-stake-in-115-mw-pv-plant_100007667/ as references. Both are news stories including additional useful information and certainly not intend to be used for spamming and website promotion. As a wider issue with www.pv-magazine.com, I don't knew the exact reasons why this site was blacklisted. However, it industry-specific online publication and as such, an important source of information concerning different solar power projects. Maybe it would be possible to remove this site from the blacklist? Beagel (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Fotolia.com

fotolia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
It appears that this link was blacklisted in March 2008 because someone spammed Wikipedia with their affiliate links in order to earn affiliate revenue. In subsequent years, this company has become notable, and aside from being mentioned in numerous reputable third party sources, has had a Wikipedia page for years (Fotolia) and this link should be added to the company infobox. Veryreal (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

We can't white list the root page on the domain because that would white list the entire site. We could white list a specific page like us.fotolia.com/Info/AboutUs if that would help. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. However, I'd like to cite precedent. 100% of the other microstock company wikipedia articles all link to their root page. It seems odd that Fotolia would be the only one not to. Please take a look at the Wikipedia articles for iStockPhoto, Shutterstock, Dreamstime, 123RF.com (website), Bigstock, stock.xchng, Getty Images. Given that the link was originally blacklisted 4 years ago because of a random spammer's affiliate link, and since the link in this context meets the Wikipedia guidelines for official links, I think we should reconsider. Veryreal (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The only precedent "is this case", and that multiple affiliates intentionally spammed Wikipedia and its other language projects. What does or does not exist in "other" articles is irrelevant, not valid grounds for de-listing, nor can you assure against future fotolia.com affiliate spamming. --Hu12 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

website.ws

I've been creating an article for SamoaNIC to tie in with an existing article for the .ws ccTLD. In doing so I'm trying to reference an FAQ held on the root website.ws site but the blacklist is stopping me. The exact URL is http://www.website.ws/faq/; apparently "http://www.website.ws" triggers the protection filter when I hit Save.

Having searched the logs I can't find any note of why it's blocked, perhaps I'm not Doing It Right but the site in and of itself is harmless and shouldn't merit a block. Christopher (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

website.ws: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

It was blocked due to widespread abuse and affiliate spamming. What exactly will a Frequently asked questions attempt to verify? Please note note WP:NOTFAQ--Hu12 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The FAQ article I was attempting to link to was part of my effort to add a citation; the source article contained factual information about the establishment of the controlling organisation which I felt was worth referencing. It wasn't simply 'because it existed'. Christopher (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
In addition, from the Project Spam archive you linked to, I can only see five .ws domains listed. These could have just as easily have been .com or .co.uk domains -- as I wasn't involved with Project Spam I don't have much prior knowledge of patterns of malicious activity but ultimately .ws is just another domain extension. I do appreciate that they're perhaps favoured by a few spammers for greater availability of keywords, similar to .biz TLD, but as website.ws is the official registrar's domain it seems unfair to be blocking the entire TLD? Christopher (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

MKTO on Just Jared Jr

justjaredjr.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

  • justjaredjr.com/2012/11/20/mkto-thank-you-acoustic-video-exclusive/

I am in the process of trying to improve the wikipedia page so it wont be deleted on the reason that the band is not meet the criteria of a band. They were featured by Just Jared Jr recently and the article will help is establishing them as an actual band. I have other blogs for them but the Just Jared site is critical as it was picked up by other sites, as well. Crowdsurftn (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The page was deleted, so this request is moot. MER-C 03:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

web.archive.org/web/20021114193900/http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/poetry_magazine_review/76867

suite101.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
archive.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

  • I have read /Common requests (but also note the several whitelisted suite101.com items at the top of the list)

Yes, this is a Suite101.com item, no longer on line, hence the archive.org URL. It is a review of Agnieszka's Dowry from 2001, and I wish to use it in that article's References section. The review, unsolicited, makes a number of technical points about the spartan and unobtrusive, as well as fast-loading, no-advertisement or flash-animation nature of the magazine's web incarnation (and mentions the print incarnation, as well), which remain unchanged in 2012. Full disclosure: I am the co-editor of Agnieszka's Dowry quoted in the review, and the author of our article. I half-expect this request to be swiftly denied on WP:COI grounds, but IMHO the review really does substantiate a number of points, and serves as a useful reference, if only simply by citing legacy net addresses for the magazine. I just thought of clicking on the link for the reviewer, something that has eluded me all these years, and it is reassuring to find out that she has been a practicing journalist: [http://web.archive.org/web/20030918165855/http://www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/Abraxis]. --Mareklug talk 07:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

historyhouse.co.uk page for History of Edinburgh Zoo

I'd like to cite this page for a paragraph about animals being put down in zoos at the outbreak of WW2. The site seems to me to be a reliable source as it mostly presents a collection of transcribed newspaper articles, census records and directories.

  • www.historyhouse.co.uk/articles/1939_casulties.html

--Noiratsi (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Repost at www.examiner.com of unavailable Niuzer.com post

examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

  • www.examiner.com/article/tattooed-model-physique-competitor-john-quinlan-are-tattoos-acceptable

The link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quinlan_%28wrestler%29#cite_ref-61 (at present) is to http://www.niuzer.com/New-York-City-NY/Interview-With-Tattooed-Model-Physique-Competitor-John-Quinlan-5531715.html , which is no longer available. From searches on Bing and Google, the only current source for that article seems to be the examiner.com repost cited in the Summary above. All other hits are to other examiner.com links for the same article, or to sites that cite an examiner.com link. I note that Google finds quite a number of the latter; various people do find the reposted article worth citing. My proposed cite seems, BtW, to be the shortest and most direct.

It seems to me that use of this examiner.com link, despite the commission payment you cite in the Common Requests (where examiner.com is listed only as "very often denied") is preferable to a "citation required" or "link expired" marking that has no likely other possibility of ever being corrected, or to deleting the sentence for which the source is cited.

It's a small point, but thank you for your consideration. I have no connection w/ Mr. Quinlan other than mild interest and SFAIK never heard of examiner.com until now. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


Withdrawn, malformed, invalid, or otherwise past relevance

encyclopediadramatica.se

I tried to add a link to encyclopediadramatica.se on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article, but it was blocked. Will links to encyclopediadramatica.se be allowed on the article itself? Jarble (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I endorse this request. The "About" page was already whitelisted, see decision from admin in talk page, the RfC is archived over several pages: here, here and here. The content of the "About" page is the same, with only a few additions to reflect the last years. Just change ".com" to ".se", and it will work fine. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

howtocreateamind.com

I think this is blacklisted through some sort of a 'howto' blanket block, in which case this is a whitelist request. This is the official website for a book by Ray Kurzweil, and was used as a source in the article on him. At the very least, it should probably be whitelisted on that specific article. — daranz [ t ] 23:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn: relevant filter no longer in effect.  — daranz [ t ] 08:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

nickpress-howtorock.com

Press site for Nickelodeon's show How to Rock, trips up the \be?howto[_\-0-9a-z]+\.com\b filter. nickpress-howtorock.com/bios.html was used as a source in the article Lulu Antariksa, an actress on the show. Also currently used in Noah Crawford and Chris O'Neal.  — daranz [ t ] 06:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

 Request withdrawn: relevant filter no longer in effect.  — daranz [ t ] 08:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/03&oldid=1108580514"