MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warning This is a discussion archive created in February 2008, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.

Contents

Approved Requests

www.petitiononline.com/nocut/petition.html

This is the link to the actual online petition referred to in the article about Apichatpong Weerasethakul, regarding the censorship of his film, Syndromes and a Century. The link was being used as a reference. The link could also be used as a reference in developing the article about the film. — WiseKwai 06:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Seems relevant. --slakr\ talk / 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

www.andrewblechman.com/learn_more.html

I am requesting that this site be whitelisted. I am the author of a book that is very pertinent to the topic of Rock Doves. I'm new to this and may have made an error, but I don't believe that I should be punished as such. My work has a lot of integrity, and the link actually sends readers to a "learn more" page about Rock Doves that sends people to other sites. I think the link: www.andrewblechman.com/learn_more.html is best left with just the Rock Dove entry, although it applies to many of the other pigeon-related entries. If you'd like to speak with me more about this, you can email me at: realliveauthor@andrewblechman.com BTW, the link that I hope to add will change slightly in coming months, so if whitelisted, it would need to be adjusted slightly. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewblechman (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference:
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your link may well be removed.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
Declined --A. B. (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Now I see what's been going on. I've been trying to add the andrewblechman.com link into a citebook template as an authorlink, but I kept getting a message telling me the link is banned. I am working on several of the pigeon related articles and want to use this authors book as a reference in several locations. I can assure you I am not a spammer (check my logs) and feel that this link will be appropriate in the format I will be using it. The authors book: Pigeons the fascinating saga of the worlds most revered and reviled bird has become quite popular amongst the pigeon keeping fraternity, and as such is a relevant reference source (I own a copy of this book). So what I am now requesting is that this link be de-blacklisted so I can utilize the authorlink function when I cite from this book please. Cheers, Sting au Buzz Me... 00:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I should add check the link that has been banned and I'm confident you will find as I have done that it's not spammy at all (I've seen far worse that's not banned). Actually a very informative collection of relevant information about the author and the book subject. I now see that it was the actual books author trying to add his link. I can see how this is frowned upon, but his book is well read, well researched and definitely appropriate as encyclopedic research material. I can use the link appropriately and contact the author about this. Sting au Buzz Me... 01:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Done -- rather than whitelist specific pages, I've removed the whole site from the blacklist. --A. B. (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :-) Sting au Buzz Me... 02:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

www.tanners-wines.co.uk

There is nothing wrong with this link, it is a valid company www.tanners-wines.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC) I am linking to this on the "List of the oldest companies".Gunter (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been spammed before (I guess this really old company has adapted to modern times). I'd prefer not to whitelist the whole domain, opening the floodgates again -- is there a specific page you want to use? --A. B. (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The home page is what i use for every company on the list, is that possible? Gunter (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The home page is the one most likely to be spammed. What about www.tanners-wines.co.uk/TannersSite/cm/A_Little_History.htm? Also, for what it's worth, I think they're stretching things to say they've been around since 1842 -- it looks like they bought a company founded then. --A. B. (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, lets use that link then, thanks Gunter (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Y Done --A. B. (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Digitpress.com

I request that digitpress.com be whitelisted so an article in it—an interview—can be used as a reference. It was used as a reference before the site was blacklisted. I understand the site was blacklisted because a user using several sockpuppets was spamming numerous articles on the 'pedia. I don't know if that's a concern any longer, but if possible, just the link to the interview could be whitelisted. The URL is http://www.digitpress.com/library/interviews/interview_bob_whitehead.html and is needed in the Bob Whitehead article. Numerous statements in the article relied on the interview as a reference. Thanks. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Id say whitelist it. βcommand 16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree, Y Done--Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, thank you! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Declined Requests

www.hungarybudapestguide.com

The page was banned across Wikipedia due to an overwhelming amount of links being directed to it from all kinds of languages. The will not be done anymore, but it was also used as a source for different articles dealing with Budapest, Hungary and World Heritage sites and now it can not be used in those areas either. I would ask for a whitelist of the page for the English wikipedia, so that it can be used again as a reference, but never again as a tool to draw many viewers to the page. I ask for forgiveness for what I did earlier, and I will not repeat it again.

Background (for blacklisting): m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#hungarybudapestguide.com_.2B_touristguide.gyuli.com

Background (for removal): m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#hungarybudapestguide.com_.2B_touristguide.gyuli.com_2

Siggiboy81 (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
Declined --A. B. (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

www.petitiononline.com/gs32005/petition.html

This is not spam, I added it myself, but not for advertising or anything of the sort. My article is about "Golden Sun 3" (a game that is not in production yet...but if very anticipated), This link leads to a petition to create such a game (don't get me wrong, the point of my article is NOT for the petition. The article talks about any info related to the release of the game) and I think anyone who reads this article about the game would love to have a chance to contribute to its creation. So please let this link stay so that people could contribute to the release of this game. Again this is not the main purpose of the article. Nimrod EX

Declined Please take a look at the specific requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. I don't think this link meets either guideline. --A. B. (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

physioroom.com

I request that this url (physioroom.com/experts/pitchside/interview_rob_swire.php) be whitelisted so that it can be used as a reference in the article Rob Swire (physio). The link is to an interview with Manchester United F.C.'s physio, Rob Swire, and provides information on his background from before he went into a career in football. Without this reference, this article stands a chance of being deleted per an ongoing AfD discussion, so I would appreciate it being whitelisted. – PeeJay 18:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I confess I am not convinced that Rob Swire is actually notable. As such allowing a link to a site that has been responsible for spamming and is not necessarily a reliable source seems doubtful to me - any other thoughts? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I concede that Rob Swire is borderline notability, but as someone in his article's AfD discussion said, it's better to keep something that might not be notable than to delete something that might be.
Regardless, I am not convinced that the spamming was done on behalf of the website in question, and also all the spam links I saw were links to the site's articles on particular injuries. I am confident that the material is reliable, as the website has links with the Premier League and the Football Manager series of games. If the site was not reliable, I doubt those organisations would associate themselves with it. – PeeJay 18:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
References:
Doesn't appear to be a Joe job, seems all the links added are related via Google Adsense ID 4335976404213501.--Hu12 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean by "Joe job", even after reading the article. Is it a good thing that it wasn't a Joe job? – PeeJay 14:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If someone Joe-jobs (i.e., spams) his competitor's web site, we don't want to blacklist unless we are driven to it. We're also more likely to whitelist a site if it has been Joe-jobbed. Joe-jobbing is rare here, but we do watch for it. In this case, it doesn't seem to have occurred. --A. B. (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case, my final argument is that this URL is unlikely to be relevant to any other article here, meaning that even if this specific URL was whitelisted, it would be unlikely to be the subject of further spam. Therefore, whitelisting this one URL can have no negative effects. – PeeJay 15:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Declined Not sufficient grounds for whitelisting at this time, or can you assure against further spam, given the history.--Hu12 (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

andhranews.net

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

This site is used as a reference in many articles, and people have been going around removing the refs because apparently it's been blacklisted. The site just carries ordinary articles from the press. Everyking (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the extensive discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Webgeek, it should not be removed from the blacklist. — Save_Us † 09:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The site is valuable as a reference and was used as such in many articles; some concern about spam cannot come before referencing content. I have already told Save Us 229 that I hold him responsible for somehow fixing all the references he ruined (by removing the entire references that included this link instead of the link alone), but any other users who favor keeping this blacklisted should also do their part to repair the damage. Everyking (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the concept of a volunteer project if your "holding me responsible" for not editing something. If I didn't remove them, the bot that removes links on the blacklist would have removed them. Are you holding the bot responsible for removing links too? Are you even bothering to blame the editors who caused the mess to begin with? So it doesn't matter that the site was seriel spammed thought Wikipedia for promotion of the site? As I said before and say again, if the news piece was important, finding a replacement references should not be a problem. If that is the case, all the links are replaceable and the site should remain on the blacklist as it was being used to spam here (despite it having legitimate content). Having this site blacklisted for abuse like it is will not affect Wikipedia in one bit if it is purely a news site which uses other sources to verify the information anyways. I would like to note also that if there was a point where someone or myself removed a link to the site and you can't find a reference yourself to come and message me on my talk page and I'll try and find one, but, demanding, no less, that I find nearly 500 references is unheard of. I'll help if someone needs help, but I don't do mandatory, tedious tasks. — Save_Us † 13:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Why are people removing the refs? Shouldn't they just be removing the links and keeping the details? --NE2 16:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
As NE2 also implies, I have repeatedly told you that I do not expect you to find new references. I merely want you to restore the old reference details, without the "spam" links, and you can go find a new reference if you want to go the extra mile. You are presenting this as me attacking you for removing links, which is not true; while I want the site whitelisted for convenience, my specific objection to your conduct is your remove of entire references, leaving formerly cited content uncited. Everyking (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Declined per spamming background & Save Us's useful comments --Herby talk thyme 14:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're volunteering to repair all these destroyed references single-handedly, Herby? Everyking (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Not an inference one draws based on the decline response above. --Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
If he's going to decline the request, I consider it his responsibility to take part in repairing the damage. The logic behind blacklisting this site is warped, anyway. It's just a site that carries articles from news agencies; it's not like they're selling pills or something. Do we blacklist websites like BBC News or CNN if somebody decides to "spam" us by adding links to their articles? Wouldn't that just be shooting ourselves in the foot? If somebody was to do something so inane as to blacklist those sites, and then proceed to remove every reference on WP that included links to it, wouldn't it be the natural responsibility of the people who did the removing to repair the damage—why should those of us who put in the effort to add those references in the first place be expected to go back and do it all over again? Everyking (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I hardly doubt you could compare andhranews to the likes of probably two of the biggest names in news like BBC or CNN. andhranews wasn't as widely known or used on the site prior to the spamming a few hundred links were spammed and there was only about a thousand links after the incident. Likewise, I believe if the owners of the sites of CNN or BBC News started spamming, there would be a serious incident coming. Arugmenting on the content of the site content is no difference once they tread into the area of using Wikipedia to boost their Alexia rating and whatnot by spamming. As for an expectancy of you to add the references twice, I don't see where anyone is, by force, trying to make you reinsert references again, unless I'm missing something, your not required to. — Save_Us † 00:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The point is that the fact that somebody decides to spam links does not invalidate the usefulness of a website as a reference; in this case, I and probably some others had used articles from the website in good faith to reference content, and now, because of this anti-spam campaign, that content sits uncited. And furthermore, I actually feel an obligation to keep that content cited, which I why I feel someone needs to repair the damage. If I am the only one who feels such an obligation, I suppose I will be the only one repairing it, although I am not at all sure how I am going to find all the articles that were hit. Everyking (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, spamming does most certianly hurt the site that was spammed. Not in it's usefulness, not as a reliable source (since the gather it from outside sources anyways) but as a means of using it here. Owners of websites are 100% not allowed to start posting links here for the promotion of their site. I don't doubt you or anyone elses good-faith when they originally added the site, but when the site started to be spammed elsewhere with other intentions is when the site needed to be blacklisted. I can recall the same thing happening to a professional wrestling website when User:JB196 decided to spam it. The site was used on hundreds upon hundreds of articles, and the site was one of the most reliable and trustworty professional wrestling sites there was at the time, until it got spammed. Then it was massed removed by bots and users, and we had to resource everything. I like how you say you have an obligation to help restore these and then call upon everyone who ever removed a link to start helping you fulfill your obligation because they removed the link to begin with. I don't know where to find all the articles which once contained the links either except the ones I removed. And what if a bot removed some of the links, do you plan to hold the bot responsible somehow? Face it, the encyclopedia is going to have unreferenced statements, a few more until they get replaced is no emergency or need to whitelist this site. — Save_Us † 00:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just so we're clear: it is worthwhile to remove references and produce an awful lot of damage that the rest of us have to clean up just so that we can punish the website for the fact that someone spammed its links here? Even though it's a perfectly good website for purposes of citing articles, we have to make its operators pay for their misdeed—at the expense of our own content? I thought we were trying to build an encyclopedia. The priorities on display here are absolutely bizarre to me. Everyking (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyking, little if any of the news content on that site was original. Just link to the original source they scraped. The citation spam I saw was often to obvious or widely known material with hundreds of possible reliable sources. Stuff like these made-up examples: "George Bush, President of the United States.[2] ..." or "Manmohan Singh is India's first Sikh Prime Minister[3]" You can step through each of the spammer's edits as several others did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Webgeek. If you see any places where we really need citations as a result of the extensive clean-up work, just flag it with a {{fact}} tag or list it here. There were hundreds of these links spammed and I suspect there were probably a few that actually did support some article assertion that really needed a citation.
As for Save Us 229's responsibility in all this, he did not make the decision to blacklist the links. He just cleaned up links after the blacklisting so editors could edit the articles (blacklisted links lock up an article until someone removes the link). If he had not done this, some other editor would have had to puzzle his way through it for each article. Either way, the link would have been removed by someone; Save Us 229's work just made it easier for other editors. --A. B. (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to restore the links added by the spammer; I assume they were not being used as valid references (could be wrong, though). I want to restore the references added by other users such as myself. Just to make this absolutely clear, since you seem to not understand: over time, I added various pieces of information to various articles that were cited to this website, because it features prominently on Google News. Those citations are now destroyed—there is no question that references were destroyed; I know for certain that my references were destroyed, because I have already found two examples of it. And if these citations are so easy to replace, go ahead and replace them. Everyking (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I already have [1] it took me exactly six minutes to reference that. Any other questions? — Save_Us † 01:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes: could you go through your contribution history and fix all the others you destroyed? Everyking (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If you could stop badgering me long enough to look here [2] you see that I've been trying to despite your outright rude demands to do something I didn't cause. if I didn't remove those links, someone else or a bot would have, period. — Save_Us † 01:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
To reiterate, my objection to what you did is based on your removal of entire references, not the links themselves. But I'm glad you're improving the Musharraf article now. Everyking (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for this line of discussion. Please take this to dispute resolution. I'm closing this as Declined--Hu12 (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Toxic Brooklyn

I would like to request that the specific website vbs.tv/player.php?bctid=742311878&bccl=NzQxODkxOTgxX19ORVdT be whitelisted.

(short version)

Pete --Petebertine (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Pete, just use local newspaper articles as references. Google News' archive search can find whatever you need if it's been in the news in the last 10 year. Here's the basic Google News search for Williamsburg + "oil spill", which gives the last 30 days of news articles -- two in this case.. Click on the "All dates" link to go back before that; it gives 80 results.
If you search the New York Times' web site, their archives go back to the 1800s. --A. B. (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks AB. --Petebertine (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Administrator note:I would also note an IP associated (66.17.190.246) edited the "longer" version of Petebertine's comment[3]--Hu12 (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

--subsystemm In comment to Hu12 statement about ip the edit. Mr. Bertine made a statement that was inaccurate, thus the edit. Thanks for the observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.17.190.246 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed as Declined. There seem perfectly reasonable alternatives to this url. --Herby talk thyme 17:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

www.gelib.com/historic-topographic-maps

I would like to link this page from WP:USRD#Nationwide, since it has a large number of useful links to sites that have topos scanned, and it's easier to link here than to copy all the links. --NE2 18:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there alternatives & is it a reliable source, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

N Not done given no further comment --Herby talk thyme 16:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

wowomg.com

You Spin Me Round (Like a Record) lacks a citation for a reference on the song being used on Internet memes. --Rotring (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked on Meta per this. I'd not be happy whitelisting it without far more rationale I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

N Not done given no further comment --Herby talk thyme 16:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

szlemberk.xf.cz

Can this please be whitelisted, I have no idea why it is blocked, I need to use it as an external link.--The Dominator (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't cross post MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#szlemberk.xf.cz.2F--Hu12 (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I need to use the link here: Lemberk Castle as I have taken much of the info from the website only to be told that it's blacklisted and I can't cite it.--The Dominator (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Are there alternatives & is it a reliable source, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

N Not done given no further comment --Herby talk thyme 16:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

www.dataeastgames.com

I request that this site be whitelisted to be used in the external link section for all Data east games located on wiki. The site mentioned has become the Official site for Data East games as G-mode are the sole owners of the back catalogue of Data East and have recently released its website. It is not known why this site would be blacklisted, further more, if any doubt that G-mode is not the sole owners full represenatation to Wiki can be provided if requested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.67.171.226 (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

N Not done Does not appear to be blocked. see test--Hu12 (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

independencia.net

I don't know why this site is blacklisted. It is actually legitimate. It has biographical inormation about Puerto Rican politicians. I need it to reference an article, Colegio San Ignacio de Loyola. --Charleenmerced Talk 21:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the history of this domain on this and other Wikipedias:
Here's information on the sock/meatpuppets that did a lot of this:
Here's your earlier request
Given the history, we'd be opening floodgates to remove this domain from the blacklist. If there is a particular page on that web site that you need to reference, however, let us know and we can look at whitelisting it. --A. B. (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Closed as Declined given the history --Herby talk thyme 16:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2522/University-Presses.html

Resolved.

I would like to add this article to Peer review as a citation to support the second sentence in this edit. The article appears to be a reliable source and contains a bibliography. The only other copy I can find is at www.answers.com/topic/university-press which is a poorer page to link to. Nurg (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Both are riddled with adds. I do request, that you add a note for users to scroll down or something like that because education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2522/University-Presses.html renders the full screen with a huge adsense advert. Y Done--Hu12 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunatly at the bottom of the page states "Content on this website is from high-quality, commercially published books available in print form" there is no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright). this needs to be Declined--Hu12 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice that. I have found the original source so all is well. Thanks for your help, Hu12. Nurg (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Good to hear you found the proper source. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

www.5min.com

Asking for a whitelist of 5min.com to serve as a reference on the Britannica article. The encyclopedia launched a video version in conjunction with 5min, and I'd like to add a reference link to http://www.5min.com/Britannica. As far as I can understand the site was blacklisted for excessive external linking a while back. --FeldBum (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's some history. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#5min.com_Linkspam--Hu12 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I looked through that and the messages left on the talk pages of 5min's accounts/socks. It's not hard to see what earned them the blacklist. Can anything be done now? The site does have some decent content for references and citations, at least in the case of Britannica. Is there a temporary or partial whitelisting that can allow my edit without re-opening Wikipedia up to the same type of spam, or perhaps a limited whitelist with stricter criteria for adding external links? --FeldBum (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there alternatives? & is it a reliable source? I've looked into this, asside from a few 5min.com self published pieces and a mention on their blog.5min.com, I find no mention of this on britannica.com or in the news. A news Item by a reputable agency would be the most reliable source to cite such a claim. The link above contains a list of videos and no context, I'm affraid more rationale is needed. --Hu12 (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
How about this link instead as a source? http://www.prweb.com//releases/2007/12/prweb574802.htm. I definitely think 5min is a reliable source in general, based on their video content, not the blog or press release. Some of the DIY videos, especially original ones, would work well as reference articles --FeldBum (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Press release. I've removed the sentence, so untill a Verifiable "Reliable Source" can be found, i'm going to have to mark this as N Not done--Hu12 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)

Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

Baxter & Cloggy's Niva sites

These are essential reference pages for Niva owners http://www12 . asphost4free . com/baxdesign/NivaMainPage . htm Not sure why it's blacklisted. Tartanperil (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It is the asphost4free bit that is blacklisted on Meta as a result of some spam dumps in January. I guess one of the main questions is whether the site is a reliable source? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Baxter's Niva site is an important source of information for Niva owners. I'll vouch for it. 19842112 (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC) I support the previous comment. Baxter's site is an excellent and informative reference site for Niva enthusiasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.206.12 (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the Cloggy page seriously unimpresive I'm afraid. Combination of "webring" stuff and incompleteness (to be "incomplete" & last updated in 2001 makes it look bad) there does not make it look like a worthwhile page to link to. The Baxter pages look quite a lot better and maybe whitelist those directly? --Herby talk thyme 09:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Stale--Hu12 (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think as Herby suggests the Baxter pages be white-listed. But I guess the Stale tag mean no one will actually read this. Tartanperil (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

www.unrealroyal.com

I request that this site be whitelisted to be used in the External links section of David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). Currently the only two external links on that page are owned or maintained by the subject himself and thus support his claim to be king of the Isle of Man. Unrealroyal.com, by contrast, analyzes Howe's claimed ancestry and legal claims and argues that his claim to be king is invalid. Therefore, unrealroyal.com should be allowed as a link to maintain neutral point of view. It is not known to me why this site would have been blacklisted as spam; it does not contain advertising. Furthermore, a named person (Michael Andrews-Reading) takes responsibility for the content of that page. By the way, this is the first time I have ever come across the spam blacklist despite having been an editor for over 2½ years and an administrator for three months, so if anyone can direct me to more information about it, I'd appreciate it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Just for the record, the entire Unrealroyal.com site is about Howe's claims and his other activities, so the intended link would be to the main page of that site, but I would prefer that the entire site be whitelisted since I don't see anything wrong with it particularly in light of the fact that David Howe's own site is linked too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Stale I am withdrawing this request because David Howe (claimant to King of Mann) was deleted and redirected and the external links owned by the subject himself are no longer in use on Wikipedia. This does not mean that unrealroyal.com should not be removed from the blacklist, but the need to use it as an external link has decreased since this request was submitted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn by requester, and no longer listed on the BL. Closing as N Not done --Hu12 (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

overflow: auto; height:

For some reason the code above triggers the blacklist and I can't figure out why. I was trying to use this in a <div> tag to get something to use a scroll bar and the page blew up on me. Note that the filter is triggered with an actual semicolon, not with the Unicode format I had to use here. Using these parameters in the reverse order or separated by other code does not appear to throw up red flags. Neither the words "overflow" or "height" appear in either blacklist, and while "auto" appears several times, it's always amidst other characters, never standing alone. I think this might be a coding problem with the software, but wanted to let you guys know. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of this string occurs in the server configurations, adding it to the whitelist won't help. This was done to prevent spammers from creating large (sometimes transparent) overlay characters, which would cover the entire page & go to their site when clicked. --Versageek 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
well, if reversing the order or using entities, makes the effect not be blocked, then it certainly doesn't prevent spammers from doing that -- it just maybe stops some of the existing spammers. —Isaac Dupree(talk) 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

s15.invisionfree.com

It's now impossible to edit Talk:Involuntary_celibacy at all because it's giving me a spam-filter message... it would be great if you could do something about it, because I didn't see any links that looked like spam to me when I read that talk page... even though I'm not modifying anything, just adding my own text that has no links in it. —Isaac Dupree(talk) 02:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I unlinked the invisionfree.com URL so the page can be edited. It's still there in text form, so people can copy/paste it into browsers, but it's no longer clickable. --Versageek 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! that's good enough —Isaac Dupree(talk) 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion