MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist: Difference between revisions

The Spam-whitelist page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist and the local spam-blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (web pages to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to reblock), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Please enter your requests at the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and not at the very bottom of the page. Sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

Also in your request, please include the following:

1. The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
2. The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
3. An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
4. If the site you're requesting is listed at /Common requests, please include confirmation that you have read the reason why requests regarding the site are commonly denied and that you still desire to proceed with your request

Important: You must provide a full link to the specific web page you want to be whitelisted (leave out the http:// from the front; otherwise you will not be able to save your edit to this page). Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar with nothing after the / character) are likely to be denied. If you wish to have a site fully unblocked please visit the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Note: Do not request links to be whitelisted where you can reasonably suspect that the material you want to link to is in violation of copyright (see WP:LINKVIO). Such requests will likely be summarily rejected.

There is no automated notification system in place for the results of requests, and you will not be notified when your request has a response. You should therefore add this page to your personal watch list, to your notifications through the subscribe feature, or check back here every few days to see if there is any progress on it; in particular, you should check whether administrators have raised any additional queries or expressed any concerns about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in the request being denied.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|350313691#section_name}}

Note that requests from new or unregistered users are not usually considered.

Admins: Use seth's tool to search the spamlists.

I was trying to make the following change on the talk page for Omar Benson Miller because Wiki has published the error, removed the error, but alas, also released the error into the internet, so it is highly likely to reappear on the Wiki page -- I'd like to forestall that. In the link, OBM says himself that Wikipedia removed it but that it keeps coming round again due to all the sites which picked up Wikipedia's original error. I don't know what the site did to get blacklisted; it looks pretty harmless to me.

==No relation to Forest Whittaker==

At one point, Wikipedia said he was Whittaker's nephew, but OBM refutes the story himself [http://www.thesportsinterview.com/omarb.html here].

—LisaSmall ^T/C 01:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site was blocked due to massive spamming, IIRC. As an aside, we don't normally do those sort of "retractions", so the edit isn't really needed. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the current link on wikipedia points at a now dead page (i have since deleted the 'dead'link) for use on the page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Machine_(band)

dreammachineonline.freeforums.org/index.php is the correct address for the official band forum of which i am the admin/owner the original link to the original forum was allowed. the original forum is no longer in existence and has thus been replaced with the above forum. this can be verified by following the link to the forum from the bands official webpage link Sideards (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't normally link to forums; see WP:RS. What makes this one worthy of an exception? Stifle (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page used to link to the bands forum but the forum address has changed, I assume the original link (which I have edited out already) was allowed as an exception? the band themselves are frequent posters on this forum and often news of the band is heard there first. Sideards (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reference this for the article for the webcomic Demon Candy: Parallel as this is the publisher of the print edition of the comic. As there are only a few reliable sources out there for this comic, I believe that this would be useful. ISD (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could I request that a decision about this link be made very soon. The article is due to appear on DYK? at midnight GMT on the 29th, and if this source is useable it will help make the article become less likely to be deleted. The article on has one secondry source so far, so this will help. ISD (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm trying to use this specific post as a citation for the Encyclopædia Dramatica section i'm creating concerning a recent problem that has arisen due to the hosting costs of their website. I would like this link to be whitelisted in order to give readers a basic idea of the hosting costs, which i have quoted in the short article but need the citation. Thanks --Bailo26 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the monthly cost of running a website is of some interest, particularly if it means the site may close, the information is of little long-term encyclopedic value, and there is no chance that any statement on ED, particularly a forum posting, could be taken as a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So is that a no then?--Bailo26 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is an exemption from this in WP:ELOFFICIAL. I am somewhat inclined to approve the request but will see what other admins say. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is a significant fact then it will be covered in reliable independent secondary sources. If it is not covered in such sources then it's just random forum wibble which can safely be ignored. The ED forums are not a reliable source for anything at all. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Fort Teran. What exactly is the problem with this link: http:// mappery.com / map-of / 1849-Texas-Historical-Map? It works and is helpful for locating site. -LlywelynII (talk) 10:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• mappery.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

See

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Dec_2#http:.2F.2Fspam.mappery.com.
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Jan_1#mappery.com

The link was spammed, and the editor apparently was not willing to stop and started vandalising by removing other external links. Not sure if the 'spamming' will stop, though I do see that the link can be of interest. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VBS.tv seems to be a legitimate site of Vice Magazine's video broadcast.

I was trying to add http:// www. vbs. tv/ watch/ the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-1-of-8 (The Vice Guide to Liberia) to Liberia article and got spam filter notice.

Please whitelist http:// www. vbs. tv/ or explain why it is blacklisted, because I could find anything clear and definitive in the archives.

Thank you. - Zealander (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vbs.tv is blacklisted because of spamming issues; see here and here. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What makes that site a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

I wish to change some links to pages moved to sub domains of iblogger.org

Since TPG have taken over MySoul, my site at home.mysoul.com.au/graemecook/ will close on 22 January 2010 Other sites have been moved since the closure of geocites in October 2009.

The new sub domains are:

greatestbattles.iblogger.org smx.iblogger.org dutcheastindies.iblogger.org marmon-herrington.iblogger.org These are the sub domains I would like added to the white list.

Existing links to this material are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyder_Ali http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_history_of_Mysore_and_Coorg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewin_Bentham_Bowring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangalorean_Catholics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Scurry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captivity_of_Mangalorean_Catholics_at_Seringapatam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Gettysburg! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies_campaign & 45 more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=geocities.com%2Fdutcheastindies%2F&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmon-Herrington_Armoured_Car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmon-Herrington_CTLS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Gettysburg!

I have previously been unable to cite other material from geocites pages and wish to add these now for .iblogger.org sub domains. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena-Auerstedt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solferino,_Battle_of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerlitz:_Napoleon%27s_Greatest_Victory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saratoga_campaign

This material includes the only on-line full text of the public domain 1893 book: HAIDAR ALI AND TIPU SULTAN AND THE STRUGGLE WITH THE MUSALMAN POWERS OF THE SOUTH BY LEWIN B. BOWRING, C.S.I. FORMERLY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF MYSORE;

A large database on the Dutch East Indies Campaign of World War II; A database of Military Vehicles by the Marmon Herrington Company The largest source of user made modifications for the computer games: Sid Meier's Gettysburg, Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle & Austerlitz: Napoleon's Greatest Victory plus supporting historical material on the battles depicted in these modifications.

Graeme Cook (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How are these reliable sources? Stifle (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Stifle,

Lewin B. Bowring was commisioner for Mysore. As his book was published in 1893 & he is writing about the 1790s he is not a primary source but his book is well foot-noted.

The Official Reports of the American Civil war are primary sources. The officers who wrote them may not be unbiased but they are accurate in the sense that this is what they wrote in their reports and for balance there are the reports of other officers, both Union & Confederate, of the same events. The cross referencing of unit names where they are referred to by their commander's name and the spreadsheet of casualties by regiment is draw from the official reports themselves.

The Dutch East Indies Campaign material is drawn from multiple sources in English, Dutch and Japanese. Contributors & some sources are listed on the credits page, others on the individual pages.

Peter Hofschröer uses German language sources (listed in the Bibliography) rather than the usual English sources for the battle of Jena in 1806 between the French and Prussians.

The Marmon-Herrington Military Vehicles material is from sources (listed on individual pages) including manufacturer's documents, official reports, various books & magazines and contemporary photographs.

etc.

Graeme Cook (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As there are no objections and 7 weeks having passed, would you now approve this request?

Graeme Cook (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You did not really answer the question. Much of the content you describe sounds like copyright violations. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Guy,

Actually the question asked was "How are these reliable sources?". Some contributors have retained copyright of their articles. The intention is not to copy this material to Wikipedia but to cite it where appropriate.

Graeme Cook (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guy did bring up a good point. I am concerned about WP:LINKVIO. Some of the material has obviously had its copyright expire (Lewin Bentham Bowring died in 1910. The American Civil War ended in 1865. Those items have expired copyrights). The problem is with certain articles that still appear to be copyrighted, such as those by Peter Hofschröer, George Gush and others. There is no indication on those pages that these people have released their works into the public domain. Are you able to provide evidence that they have allowed your site to host their material? 152.16.16.75 (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright notices requiring permission to reproduce have only been placed when requested. In contrast, where this some of the same George Gush's material appears on http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_armies_swiss.html the site both acknowledges use with permission and claims copyright for themselves.

A list of books by Peter_Hofschröer can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hofschr%C3%B6er but he also contributes to websites eg: http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Waterloo_myths_1.html http://www.achart.ca/wellington/siborne.htm http://www.achart.ca/wellington/waterloo1.htm http://www.scott-ludwig.com/NWC/Prussia/archives/grape1.htm

Graeme Cook (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a George Gush page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gush

Graeme Cook (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hello

i'm writing in retation to an article i'm about to submit to request that you whitelist a specific Url related to Lulu.com (a site which understandably re span mail you have blacklisted).

the article is:

User:AgRince/Social Science Research on Greatness

the Url i'm asking you to whitelist (minus: http://www.) is:

lulu.com/content/e-book/the-arrival-of-the-fittest-how-the-great-become-great/8091506

My reasons for this request are:

• the article re greatness i am submitting covers the major books written on the topic over the last 150 years or so.

• there is nothing in Wiki re this topic at present, ie social science research on greatness

• the Url i want to have whitelisted is not the Lulu.com site Url. It is simply one particular Url which provides reference information for one of the seven major books on greatness discussed in the article. Without this specific Url the reference list remains incomplete

• the article is related to many other topics covered in Wiki, eg excellent article on Nobel Prize which you have listed in your index of featured/good articles; articles related to any of a multitude of 'greats' such as Einstein, Mozart, Hitchcock, etc etc who are all discussed in both the article re greatness, and more particularly in considerable detail with relation to how each became a 'great' in the book whose Url i am requesting that you whitelist.

• the only place the Url will appear is at the very end of the article in the reference list, indicating that the book is published online as ebook at that Url

Many thanks in advance for your consideration.

AgRince (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This specific url does not work for me. Did you mean the book: "The Arrival of The Fittest: How The Great Become Great" by Bill Dorris (2002, 2004)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE: Earlier this month, I submitted a request to remove a blacklisted link on the talk page for Spam-blacklist (it is now archived several days back here) and was redirected by an editor to this page.

I think that at least my particular link (perhaps not the whole website) should be whitelisted because I can't find another reliable source to back up changes I need to make to the Zoroastrianism article, or other Zoroastrian or related articles if it's deemed necessary.

I am not sure why the cais-soas.com website is blacklisted. I haven't seen any copyright violations, but I do see sources listed on the website's Zoroaster article that I want to use.

The website minus http://www. is:

cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions/iranian/Zarathushtrian/good_religion_Institutionalized.htm 

The reasons I need this link whitelisted and why the link is needed:

• The Zoroastrianism article contains INCORRECT terminology (with no source). Zoroaster is the Greek form of the Avestan term Zarathustra, which was shortened to Zartosht in Persian and Zarathusht/Zarthusht in Gujarati. The article currently has the Zarathusth/Zarthusht as the Persian name and Zartosht as the Gujarati one for the Iranian/Persian prophet.

• I am Persian and my ancestry is Zoroastrian, so I KNOW this to be false and can attest to the correct usage. However, even though it is FACT and common knowledge, the reference would stop any erroneous arguments on this website. There is currently NO source on that article page for names currently used. I'd rather have some source to back it up. And a researched article written by a university professor is a good one.

• The website references historical sources.

• Dr. Jafarey is a university professor who founded CAIS (Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies) with another professor at the University of London.

• A source like this one is needed to verify the correction I want to add, and also lists a good amount of scholarly sources for it's article.

• This is the best and most accessible source I've found to reference the edits I want to make.

• A whitelisting of the whole website isn't necessary; this ONE particular link is the only one I currently need to back up my edits.

Thank you for the consideration. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site is blacklisted as it is known to carry copyrighted material in violation of the owner's copyright. Can you please explain how this page is not such a violation? Stifle (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

http://post.ly is operated by Posterous and therefore relevant to and is indeed already mentioned on their article. Requesting that the website's homepage be whitelisted for the Posterous article; no reason to make people jump through the copy-paste-into-the-address-bar hoop. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for the link, the statement 'Posterous hosts a web-shortening service' is enough.  Declined --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Then cite the secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please whitelist:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

How is this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the petition to Apple from Real that set up a few years ago, and would be worthwhile linking to from the relevant section in the RealNetworks article.

• www.petitiononline.com/r4apple/petition.html

EAi (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Denied, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to cite this particular article - www.examiner.com/x-28587-SF-Buddhism-Examiner~y2010m2d3-Buddhism-and-Nonviolent-Communication-an-interview-with-Oren-Sofer - on Nonviolent Communication, about the connection between that and Buddhism. I get the objection to examiner.com in general, but this particular author has written a series of journalistic articles that would seem to qualify them as a reliable source: www.examiner.com/x-28587-SF-Buddhism-Examiner --John_Abbe (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Added --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --John_Abbe (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oh really? I wasn't aware it was unreliable. I'll go hunting then. Cheers, – Toon 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I understand this domain has been involved in some SEO spamming. However we have an legit article Grange City Hotel, covering a notable 5* london hotel, which is missing a link to the hotel's home page. So. Any possibility of whitelisting www DOT grangehotels.com/Hotels-London/Grange-City-Hotel/Grange-City-Hotel.aspx?INT=1 ...? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am minded to allow this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. I do seem to remember this coming up before, though... Stifle (talk) 09:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the article in question has existed only since 14 December 2009 ... not sure any request has been made whilst that article was extant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Stifle (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there My name is Nitzan Moshe and I ‘m a part of 10Bet.com and I’m writing on behalf of the CEO Shalom Meckenzie; A few days ago after reviewing the bookmaker entry and evaluating it, I posted an entry about 10bet and linked it to/and from the bookmaker entry, when I tried to link to the site I found out that it’s in Wikipedia’s black list, I don’t understand why – because I think that as a well respectable online sportsbook that operates in the UK, it should be an integral part of the bookmaker entry, and from following reasons:

• 10bet is licensed to operate in the UK and regulated by the UK Gambling Commission
• As a part of the trusted legal bookmakers- 10bet is a member of [1]].
• It has a seniority of 7 years in betting, and about 5 years in the online betting scene.
• Thousands of players attend the site every month and it has over a half a million registered users from all over the world. From the UK alone the site has over 100,000 registered users.
• It handles a various range of online bookmaking as fit to a well respectable site.
• Every person who is interested in betting at 10Bet is checkout: that he is over 18 years of age and from a country that enables betting.

In light of these facts I believe that 10bet should be included in Wikipedia's White List- I Want to link from the entry 10bet to the 10bet site. - www.10bet.com .NitzanM (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined. Article is blatant advertising, you admit that you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a business directory or a link farm or an advertisement hoarding. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Unofficial Fan Site for Amber Lamps and it a valid link (not a spam site) that would be quite useful as an external link in the article about the meme AC Transit Bus fight. The site contains innocuous links to youtube videos and to an internal directory of hosted still photos at amberlamps.co.cc/pics.html --

If for some reason you believe that the entire site cannot be whitelisted, please at least white-list the gallery of stills. Thanks for your consideration.

catherine yronwode, long-time editor, not affiliated with the site, just trying to help improve the article on the meme. Catherineyronwode (talk) 09:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just upload copies of the pictures to Wikipedia? If they really benefit the article, they should fit under the "fair use" guideline. Other than that, there is no real need to link to the site. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL links to avoid includes fansites. This is not even an official fansite. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Stifle (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request this link -- article/1249339/anatidaephobia_the_fear_that_you_are.html (subpage of AssociatedContent) -- for referencing in the article Anatidaephobia.

--Russell777^{Evil League of Ducks} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.67.62 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What evidence do we have that this is a reliable source? Guy (Help!) 12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Not done due to lack of response. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Site: www.associatedcontent.com/article/41959/the_war_on_christians_in_american_public.html?cat=9
• Page: Talk:Samuel B. Kent

See Talk:Samuel B. Kent#Bluster about jail time for graduating high school seniors who mentioned Jesus. Requesting that this link be allowed on this talk page (not in article). Preventing use of the link in the talk page impairs legitimate discussion of good-faith attempt to find a WP:RS discussing an allegation from the blacklisted site. TJRC (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a talk page, you should just post the link as above (not a clickable link). There is no need for a whitelist entry for a talk page when anyone can copy the URL into their browser. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, that same thought occurred to me seconds after I clicked on "Save Page," and I went ahead and did that. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Stifle (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(associatedcontent.com/article/2568263/skittles_gone_vegetarian_what_was_wrong.html?cat=5) This article contains relevant information for the Skittles (Confectionary) page, all of it located in one area for more concise citation within Wikipedia. Information presented within the article is cited, so it is clear that it is reliable. I've looked through other portions of the website and seen that some articles are not cited properly or appear to have unreliable information. However, because all articles are written and uploaded independently, it seems that these articles should be allowed (or not) on a case-by-case basis. Note that relevant information includes: background on ingredients that were not suitable for vegetarians, which Skittles products are now vegetarian, and when consumers first began to notice the changing ingredients in these products (currently showing a "when?" citation note on the Skittles Wikipedia page).

Thank you for your consideration of this webpage, --Hosenkun (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This does not appear to be a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Declined Stifle (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would request this website(maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/lebastardedemezieres.html)to be White listed as it holds some important genealogical information regarding French and English royalty. Here is a list of articles that could benefit from it

• Henri de Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier : in this article it would make to us known the pedigree of his mother, Renee of Anjou, who according to the website was a direct male line (albeit illegitimate) descendant of John II of Naples.
• Charles, Count of Maine : This article does not list any illegitimate children, therefore a link could be forged between this article and others, for example the previous one, by naming Charles's illegitimate offspring, and his subsequent descendants form them.
• Marie de Bourbon, Duchess of Montpensier : This article also does not list any illegitimate children, yet according to the site, Marie had several illegitimate children with a certain Leonor de Orleans, Comte de St Paul, Duc de Fronjac. This would imply she has descendants till today, which was earlier unknown as her only legitimate daughter, La Grande Mademoiselle, died without any issue. Furthermore, her article can be linked to the articles of the Duke of Lennox, the illegitimate son of Charles II of England, as follows...
  • According to the site, Marie's illegitimate granddaughter, Jeanne de Meziere, was a mistress of Louis Joseph de Bourbon, duc de Vendome. The offspring of this liasion, Jacqueline de Mezieres, was mistress to Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond. In turn, their daughter Renée Lennox was mistress of her cousin Charles Beauclerk, 2nd Duke of St Albans and, not surprisingly, in turn, their offspring, Diane Beauclerk-Lennox, became the mistress of a Maltese Baron Alessandro Mompalalao Cuzkeri. Diane has surviving descendants today, but they are generally commoners. Also, through this long chain of illegitimate relationships one can highlight the sexual tendencies of the French Nobility, or in other words, the Ancien Regime....HOwever, that is not very important. What is important is the number of articles that will benefit from this information...Therefore i request to please white list this site, as it is a valuable piece of information for wikipedia...

Thanking You, Nirvaan, Talk Page, Nghosh 20:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is the evidence that this is a reliable source, please? Also, I can't find the blacklist discussion. Guy (Help!) 11:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• See here. This tool is very handy for finding blacklisting requests. MER-C 11:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the link ([2]). Its clearly says NO ENTRIES for MaltaGenealogy.com. Nirvaan, Talk Page, Nghosh 09:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still awaiting evidence that this is a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done due to failure to cooperate with the process and provide required information. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in a middle of a discussion about a topic and would like to be able to use this pdf file as a matherial for the discussion. I don't know about the rest of the site, but this pdf is all I need from itHammer of Habsburg (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're in a discussion, you can paste the url like you have done in the title of this post (as opposed to having a live link). MER-C 02:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, unnecessary. Just use the part after http: in the discussion. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am creating a series of articles for the albums by Dope Stars Inc.. Given the nationality of the band, there are few english reviews for their albums, namely the 10,000 Watts of Artificial Pleasures EP. I am writing the article HERE and it would not let me use the Metal observer review ( www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=1&id=5782 ) which would greatly benefit all readers and expand the article. This is a review, so opinion is what is what is being sourced, and therefore it is a reliable source because the information cannot be incorrect or disputable. GroundZ3R0 002 01:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This does not appear to be a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Not done, fails WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irequest this site to be unblocked as it conatains some useful and trusted information regarding the details of celebrities like biography, awards etc and would act as an useful reference

Thanking You, KingdomHearts25

 Declined. No proper rationale given, past abuse and issues of reliability would require a compelling case for removal from blacklisted status. Guy (Help!) 19:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ashtalakshmi.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 site is a good information about hindhu goddess of lakshmi, please check site once approve to purmission to usefull information— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.25.129 (talk • contribs)

 Not done. This request may be considered when a trusted, high-volume editor requests the link for use in a specific article. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please whitelist medievalhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/hospitality_in_the_medieval_monastery It would benefit the article: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_monasticism because it would allow me to make an external link footnote for a paragraph I wrote. If I could make an external link, it would allow the article to be more reliable. Also, I will not put the paragraph I wrote on Wikipedia without a footnote, and therefore the information that would benefit the article would not be there. Oxfordmom (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Declined, this is not obviously a reliable source and we have had a lot of problems with this site in the past. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you looking at my request, so thank you! Oxfordmom (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add this link: www.modelinia.com/videos/she--8217-s-with-the-band--damaris-lewis-gets-personal-with-nick-jonas/479 to Damaris Lewis's Wikipedia page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damaris_Lewis. Wikipedia will benefit from this site and this site being whitelisted because Modelinia is a recognized go-to source for access to and factual information on the model community. We have direct, credible, real relationships with the models featured on our site as well as their agents and representation. We do not publish any photos or content without signed release forms and all other requisite permissions.

I would also like to add this link: www.modelinia.com/models/damaris-lewis/182 to Damaris Lewis's page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damaris_Lewis because it provides her date of birth, which Wikipedia does not currently list. Therefore, permitting this page on Modelinia to serve as a source for this basic biographical information.

I would also like to add this link: www.modelinia.com/models/brooklyn-decker/93 to Brooklyn Decker's page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklyn_Decker because the basic information such as her height and her date of birth are incorrect on her Wikipedia page.

I would also like to add this link: www.modelinia.com/blog/mayor-bloomberg-hearts-fashion-week-and-modelinia/17998 to Veronica Webb's page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veronica_Webb because it is important up-to-date information on how Veronica has been continuing her career as a TV host beyond Tim Gunn's Guide to Style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.245.138.226 (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Ewestlake (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Declined. We typically do not whitelist sites at the request of the site owners and the use case you present is skirting the borders of our policy forbidding original research. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a blacklist entry for /\bpetitions?\b/, which seems rather overzealous. It catches the above, which is the official site for online petitions to the UK Prime Minister. The particular thing I would like to be able to link is search.petitions.number10.gov.uk/kbroker/number10/petitions/search.lsim?ha=1159&qt=dihydrogen (to provide a reference for a claim made at Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax).

• If the reason for the very broad blacklisting is that many sites with "petition" in their names are spammy or unreliable or otherwise unlikely to be usable as sources or appropriate for linking, then I think *.petitions.number10.gov.uk should be whitelisted.
• If the reason for the very broad blacklisting is concern that links from WP to online petition sites are themselves likely to be a form of abuse (e.g., people agitating for signatures for their pet causes) then I think search.petitions.number10.gov.uk should be whitelisted.
• If the reason is something else I haven't thought of that makes almost all links to sites with "petition" in their names a Bad Thing, then I request that whitelisting the specific link above be considered.
• If the reason is something that makes it bad to have the URL included on the Dihydrogen Monoxide hoax page even without being a link, I will be glad to remove it again. (At present I've added a <ref> for it that includes the URL without the leading http://.)

Wikipedia will gain from the whitelisting because the fact that a petition has been made, or that it has received a very large number of signatures, or that it has been successful, can easily be worthy of mention in WP. The specific example above is pretty borderline, but consider e.g. the petition mentioned under "Rehabilitation" on the Alan Turing page; it would be good to be able to link directly to the petition there, as well as to articles about the petition. Thanks. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We very much intend to block all petition sites, because Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to call attention to your cause. If it's your intention to refer to the amount of support some petition has received, you should cite a secondary source that says so. The petition site is not a reliable source for anything. Stifle (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, it's not my cause; I neither created nor (IIRC) signed any of the petitions mentioned above. (It's possible that I signed the Turing one; I forget. In the present instance my intention was simply to provide a citation for a claim that was already in the article and that had a citation-needed tag on it.) And, also for the avoidance of doubt, neither in the case that actually prompted this request nor the hypothetical one I mentioned does this have anything to do with calling attention to any cause; the DHMO petitions are obvious jokes and that's their point, and the Turing one was closed long ago.

Anyway: the petition site, at least in this case, most certainly *is* a reliable source for (1) the existence of any given petition on it, (2) the support it has received, and (3) the official response, if any, from the UK government. Of course it isn't a reliable source for any claim made in any petition, but I wasn't suggesting that it is. And of course it's a primary source for (1-3) above, and must therefore be used with care; but, to take as an example the DHMO-hoax page I mentioned above, the only claim being made there is that several petitions have been submitted and rejected as not serious, which is (to quote WP:OR) a "descriptive statement[] that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge".

It seems to me that the petition-searching facility at search.petitions.number10.gov.uk is scarcely more soapbox-enabling than the internet-searching facility at www.google.com, which is not blacklisted. (Indeed, the documented purpose of the blacklist is "a last resort for spam which spreads across multiple projects" and it seems improbable to me that a blanket ban on sites with "petition" or "petitions" in their name can be necessary for that purpose; but that's a digression and it is not my purpose to divert this into a discussion of whether the blanket entry is a mistake. My point is only: Here is what seems like an obviously legitimate purpose for linking to this site.) Gareth McCaughan (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many petition sites have been problematic (petitiononline.com the big example, but there are many more), most of them are sites where one can start without any background a 'free' petition, and abuse of those was significant.

That being said, I would be inclined to say that petitions.number10.gov.uk could be different in that regard. You need to be a British citizen to start a petition, contact details are checked, etc. etc. I don't think it will be possible to 'just create a random petition here'. I second whitelisting the whole domain (though we may consider to add it to XLinkBot at the same time just to not have it abused, and to get a bit of an idea of the if and how it is abused). Any second opinions? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose whitelisting the domain at this time. At first glance, the URL suggested it might be reserved for official matters. If, however, it is for the general public, it would open us up to problematic abuse (even if petitions are vetted there). We can alway whitelist specific notable pages if needed. As for the link in the dihydrogen article, is that bit of trivia even notable? All it really proves is that the office didn't fall for the joke, which doesn't seem terribly notable. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I (the person who made this request) am not 100% convinced that the DHMO petition thing is notable either; I was just doing some citation cleanup. But I think I'd say: given that we have an article about DHMO at all, and given that the purpose of the DHMO hoax is as a sort of test/demonstration of a certain kind of scientific illiteracy, facts about notable entities that have demonstrated either that sort of illiteracy or its opposite when faced with the hoax are relevant there. But no, the article would hardly be ruined if that claim were simply removed. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk: you don't need to be a British citizen, you just need to say you're a British citizen. I'm not totally opposed to the concept of whitelisting this one, but it's still a primary source. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not here to garner support for (always and necessarily) partisan petitions. Nor are these petitions usable as sources. We can report on what third parties say about them, and that is enough. As tot he specific case, the Number 10 petition site was one of the sites that caused the blacklisting in the first place, and sourcing commentary of the petition to the petition site itself is WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, again: (1) I haven't the least interest in using WP to garner support for any petition; all the petitions I mentioned above have already closed. Suggesting that links to this site be permitted is not, in any way, the same thing as saying that WP is here to garner support for petitions. (2) The specific instance that prompted the request *is* reporting on a "third party"'s comments, namely the (admittedly unsurprising) official response from the British government to a bunch of hoax petitions. (3) Linking to the No10 petition site to support a statement that (a) several silly hoax petitions of a certain kind have been submitted to it, and (b) they have all been rejected as not serious, is not in any useful sense "original research"; in particular, it does not match the description of "original research" at the start of WP:OR, and constitutes appropriate use of primary sources as prescribed on that page. Having said all that, I'll repeat something else I already said: I can't get terribly excited about whether the Dihydrogen monoxide page is or isn't allowed to source its claim about those petitions, nor about whether it's allowed to make that claim at all. It's obviously of zero importance, near enough. And arguing about this is obviously a waste of everyone's time. I therefore withdraw this request because I don't wish to spend any more time arguing about something I care so little about. But I'm troubled by the bogosity of some of the counterarguments that have been made here. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Declined since the requesting rationale basically reiterates the kind of uses that led to the original blacklisting, with the No. 10 petition site being one of if not the most prominent example cited in that discussion. As was noted then, genuinely significant and notable petitions can be discussed by reference to reliable independent sources, anything cited directly to the site risks WP:OR and allowing links is an open invitation to a resumption of the long-term problem of canvassing. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to use this examiner article www.examiner.com/x-13886-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2010m1d31-New-paper-from-the-Science-and-Public-Policy-Institute-destroys-global-warming-claims-by-CRU to help establish the notability of the argument used.TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand this. You use 'original research' without editorial overview to establish notability of an argument? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've used news articles, the biggest blog on the internet (of the subject), a scientist, a tv documentary and a few other things to establish the notability of the argument, but the editor in question is making it clear that he doesn't want it in. I added 4 more sources to show him and was surprised when the examiner was blacklisted.TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm .. now saying nothing about the specific requests, but if a real hoax is widely covered on blogs, unreliable 'news' sites then that does not make it true. It is not 'I have 50 blog posts (on different blogs), so it is worth mentioning'. This defies our reliable sources guideline, I think, unless there is real merit to include it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dirk.  Not done Stifle (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Riggins, Linda N., The Telescopes Galileo Made: How He Built Them An Original and Replicas Now Touring Museumsat astronomyhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_telescopes_galileo_made can only be found online at sites related to suite101.com, all of which are blacklisted. This particular article, however, appears sound and includes a list of credible sources. The article is the best clear online source for the proposition that Galileo's instrument maker Marc'Antonio Mazzoleni assisted Galileo with the production of Galileo's telescopes, as Mazzoleni clearly did with other instruments invented by Galileo. See further discussion in the DYK nomination for the Mazzoleni article: Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_February_13 --JohnPomeranz (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, heck. New to this whole whitelist-blacklist thing, I have only now figured out that I should have searched the past discussions about Suite101.com. Who knew there had been so much furor? I bow to past consensus and withdraw this request. (Although the article in question still looks well-sourced to me. I wish it could have been found elsewhere.)

I also wish that there were more admins working this page. It's been frustrating waiting for a response to my request, although I know we're all volunteers here, so I shouldn't gripe.--JohnPomeranz (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site lenr-canr.org has a lax approach to copyright and was blacklisted for this and other abuses. Some links were whitelisted mainly at the request of user:Abd. Following the usual process of editorial debate and consensus only one of those remained in article space as of today, and I just removed it as it is an article copyright of Elsevier Publishing for which we already have a DOI link. Abd is now topic-banned from cold fusion. There are several regex expressions in the list which support the several requested links mainly as part of his project to rewrite the article in terms more favourable to the pro-cold fusion editors, but it's hard to see how that's actually going to be of any benefit as the three main advocates of this content, Abd, Jed Rothewell and Pcarbonn, are all indefinitely topic banned. The fact that the only link in mainspace was a copyright violation says it all, really. I think we should simply remove these links and discuss again as and when a good-faith editor requests them for some actual content, hopefully without the befuddling walls of text which characterised the earlier discussions. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links for reference:

• first request of two one link (added)
• request for entire site (declined)
• request for transcript of audio interview (added)
• request for 13 papers (9 added)

Note that Pcarbonn's topic ban has expired it has now been placed again and extended to indefinite. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. We can do without that particular person "helping" us, I think. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1st of all, please don't de-list the transcript of the radio interview.

2nd, Jed (the website's owner) says that he got the permission of the authors of the text, which seems to be correct and true. However, looking at the copyright pages of the journals that published the papers, some say that the authors can only host copies in their own personal websites, while others reserve all rights.

3rd, I understand that in several occasions Jed has taken papers down when requested by its publisher, which seems to imply that he didn't have previous publisher permission for some of the papers, and that those papers only remained there because the publishers have not bothered to complain about them. This could perfectly be the case for several of the whitelisted papers.

4th, they were claimed as convenience copies of article sources, but they are not being used as sources anywhere due to strong disagreements in talk pages with other editors (like myself).

5th, and most importantly, those are all primary sources that were going to be used to counter the points made by secondary sources, aka original research. The secondary sources say that this sort of papers has been ignored by the majority of scientific community since the field was discredited long time ago (~1989). The intention was adding these primary sources to the article, then claim them as examples that the secondary sources are wrong, and list them as examples of what the scientists really thought of the developments in the field. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The authors do not have the right to give permission to publish material whose copyright they have, by virtue of submission and acceptance of publishing, assigned to the publisher concerned. They are allowed to publish papers on their own websites but not to release the material to other websites. This has been covered before. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very low-traffic page, perhaps we should open a process for it in the Wikipedia namespace. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was unable to format this so as to fit in the left column where x-wiki links normally go. This, as well as a similar list for other local blacklists (on our blacklist's talk page) may be useful information. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]