Liamdavies (talk | contribs) →Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock): cable-car-guy again. |
Cyberpower678 (talk | contribs) →cable-car-guy: Comment |
||
Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
The blacklist is currently blocking all ''guy (dot) com'' adresses, I've posted here but nothing was done, and now cyberbot has tagged it again, with someone this time removing the link ([[Trams in Melbourne]] amongst other pages). I'd like to put the link back, but the blacklist issue needs to be sorted, I don't see why every domain ending in ''guy (dot) com'' is even blocked, but can someone either whitelist ''cable-car-guy (dot) com'' or remove ''guy (dot) com'' from the blacklist. [[User:Liamdavies|Liamdavies]] ([[User talk:Liamdavies|talk]]) 07:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
The blacklist is currently blocking all ''guy (dot) com'' adresses, I've posted here but nothing was done, and now cyberbot has tagged it again, with someone this time removing the link ([[Trams in Melbourne]] amongst other pages). I'd like to put the link back, but the blacklist issue needs to be sorted, I don't see why every domain ending in ''guy (dot) com'' is even blocked, but can someone either whitelist ''cable-car-guy (dot) com'' or remove ''guy (dot) com'' from the blacklist. [[User:Liamdavies|Liamdavies]] ([[User talk:Liamdavies|talk]]) 07:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
||
:Note: This is not a false positive.—[[User:C678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberpower]] [[User talk:C678|<sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat]]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 14:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==Approved requests== |
==Approved requests== |
Revision as of 14:32, 24 September 2013
Spam blacklists |
---|
|
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:
- The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
- The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
- An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
- 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|574326567#section_name}}
Note that requests from new or unregistered users are not usually considered.
Admins: Use seth's tool to search the spamlists.
Indicators | |
---|---|
Request completed: | |
Done | {{Done}} |
Stale | {{StaleIP}} |
Request withdrawn | {{withdrawn}} |
Request declined: | |
Declined | {{Declined}} |
Not done | {{Notdone}} |
Information: | |
Additional information needed | {{MoreInfo}} |
Note: | {{TakeNote}} |
Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock)
www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2006/07/18/5002.shtml
- kavkazcenter.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
Kavkaz Center seems to be blocked. I just need to be able to cite to the one news article above. There was a paragraph in Yvonne Ridley's page that was removed a couple of years ago under BLP because the cite for the quote wasn't provided. Having tracked it down, I'd like to be able to use it as the cite. AFAIK, the article is not published elsewhere on the internet. Thanks. Bromley86 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I should have mentioned that the article is written by Ridley herself.Bromley86 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- This seems very biased and I am not convinced it is a reliable source. I'll leave open for a while for refutation purposes but am inclined to reject. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for replying Stifle. Not sure what you mean by biased. It's a faithful reproduction (published 6 days after first publication & fully accredited) of an article she personally wrote in a now-defunct magazine (DailyMuslims.com). I've searched using paragraphs from it and found plenty of web-board confirmations that it originally came from the Daily Muslims article. The Daily Muslims was cited in an earlier version of the WP page, before the DM site went down.
- I don't agree with the views, but it does confirm a couple of statements in her bio, namely "Ridley wrote an article referring to Basayev by the Muslim honorific shaheed, meaning "martyr"" and "She went on to refer to Basayev as leader of "an admirable struggle to bring independence to Chechnya"." Aside from this, we currently have a partial confirmation of the first quote from a Guardian piece, but it lacks any context; we currently have no other confirmation of the second quote. AFAIK, the Daily Muslims was a reasonably reliable source before it shut down, certainly when articles she's written are used to confirm her views; she's been a proper journalist, written a couple of books and been a candidate in elections (with a decent share of the vote). As mentioned, earlier versions of the WP page used to link directly to the Daily Muslims article, but when that link died a fact tag was added and, without support being available, the paragraph was later removed. Bromley86 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- The Wayback Machine site http://archive.org is often used on Wikipedia to restore dead links. Can that be done here? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Amatulic. I'd recently discovered Wayback and have been using it whenever I bump into dead links, but in this case it didn't seem to work so I ignored it: "The page isn't redirecting properly" (http://www.dailymuslims.com/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=2255&Itemid=238). However, trying again, I see that getting rid of the space after php? gets me some hits. Problem is, they all seem to be "Latest News & Articles" pages. Bromley86 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The article appears to have in fact been published on the daily muslims website: http://web.archive.org/web/20060714015331/http://www.dailymuslims.com/ It appears that at some point daily muslims changed the way it links to articles and nobody changed it, so the link just takes you to "Latest News" and the updated link is lost. If you go to a more recent version: http://web.archive.org/web/20090220061109/http://dailymuslims.com/ you can click on news articles and it will take you to the article instead of latest news and it is a completely different link format. I don't know about the site as a whole, but this particle article does appear to be an accurate reproduction of the original article and I can't find any alternatives. Me5000 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Amatulic. I'd recently discovered Wayback and have been using it whenever I bump into dead links, but in this case it didn't seem to work so I ignored it: "The page isn't redirecting properly" (http://www.dailymuslims.com/index.php? option=com_content&task=view&id=2255&Itemid=238). However, trying again, I see that getting rid of the space after php? gets me some hits. Problem is, they all seem to be "Latest News & Articles" pages. Bromley86 (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- The Wayback Machine site http://archive.org is often used on Wikipedia to restore dead links. Can that be done here? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's a good platform's page contained useful information,it's convenient for the searcher to find the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeykingwjj (talk • contribs) 14:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Examiner.com review of Feudal game
examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
- What: Examiner.com/article/feudal-an-abstract-battle-which-all-pieces-move-at-once
- Where: Feudal (game)
- Why: I understand that examiner.com is blacklisted because many of its pages are basically blog pages with unreliable content. The page I'd like to get whitelisted is a game review, which I'd like to use as a source for the critical reception of Feudal (game). This should be a suitable source of this information per WP:RSOPINION, and the article overall is fairly straightforward and consistent with what I have seen in other sources, like Board Game Geek and The Game Pile. Is this an acceptable reason to whitelist this particular page? And since I know you will ask, yes, I have read the FAQ, and there is absolutely no connection between myself and any content on Examiner.com. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Specifically, I intend to use the article linked above as the source for the statement "Detractors complain that the game's complexity lends to an in-game analysis time that can potentially exceed opponents' span of interest." (in the Reception section of Feudal (game)) Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I suggest reject. I don't think it passes WP:RSOPINION. Your quote is not that person's opinion, it is one person making a statement for a large group. For a statement like that you would need multiple sources. Me5000 (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's one person, in the context of a review, summarizing the criticisms presented in other reviews. If I made the same statement in the WP article and cited the individual critical reviews on the Board Game Geek (those which this reviewer summarized), that would be WP:SYNTH. I don't see why a paraphrasing of a reviewer's summary of these critiques shouldn't be admissible as a reasonable and appropriate alternative to synthesizing these myself. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- WP:SYNTH does not say do not combine sources, it says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If all the sources say the same thing, they can be combined. Additionally, if you combining the reviews is original research, how is the reviewer combining the reviews not original research? Me5000 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's the reviewer acting as a secondary source, rather than a Wikipedia editor (and by extension, Wikipedia itself) acting as the secondary source. We can quote or paraphrase a secondary source that draws conclusions or advances a position, as long as we do so in a neutral context, but we as editors are not supposed to draw conclusions or advance positions ourselves. If I, as a WP editor, go around gathering up links to these critical reviews on BGG and then edit the WP article to say "critics complain of foo [1][2][3][4][5][6]" (if foo the essence but not the substance of their individual critiques - i.e. summarizing the points they were making but not closely enough to qualify as quoting or paraphrasing them) then I am using those reviews as primary source material and drawing my own conclusion based upon them. That's WP:SYNTH. The problem isn't the conclusion that is drawn, it's that WP is a tertiary source and should not be used by editors to draw their own conclusions, as if it were a secondary source. The conclusion itself is admissible if it passes WP:Neutrality. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- While I understand what you're saying I'm not entirely sure that it is an acceptable quote to use from the review, especially considering examiner.com is self published(doesn't that make the statement in the article exactly the same as if it were done on Wikipedia?). I could be wrong, I don't know. I have no power, it's ultimately up to the admin. Me5000 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- I quoted the WP article in my request, but that in turn was a paraphrasing of the Examiner.com reviewer's statement summarizing criticisms of the game (but not actually quoting Examiner.com). Anyway, thank you for raising your questions and allowing me the opportunity to make my case. Have a good day. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- While I understand what you're saying I'm not entirely sure that it is an acceptable quote to use from the review, especially considering examiner.com is self published(doesn't that make the statement in the article exactly the same as if it were done on Wikipedia?). I could be wrong, I don't know. I have no power, it's ultimately up to the admin. Me5000 (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's the reviewer acting as a secondary source, rather than a Wikipedia editor (and by extension, Wikipedia itself) acting as the secondary source. We can quote or paraphrase a secondary source that draws conclusions or advances a position, as long as we do so in a neutral context, but we as editors are not supposed to draw conclusions or advance positions ourselves. If I, as a WP editor, go around gathering up links to these critical reviews on BGG and then edit the WP article to say "critics complain of foo [1][2][3][4][5][6]" (if foo the essence but not the substance of their individual critiques - i.e. summarizing the points they were making but not closely enough to qualify as quoting or paraphrasing them) then I am using those reviews as primary source material and drawing my own conclusion based upon them. That's WP:SYNTH. The problem isn't the conclusion that is drawn, it's that WP is a tertiary source and should not be used by editors to draw their own conclusions, as if it were a secondary source. The conclusion itself is admissible if it passes WP:Neutrality. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 16:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- WP:SYNTH does not say do not combine sources, it says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." If all the sources say the same thing, they can be combined. Additionally, if you combining the reviews is original research, how is the reviewer combining the reviews not original research? Me5000 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- It's one person, in the context of a review, summarizing the criticisms presented in other reviews. If I made the same statement in the WP article and cited the individual critical reviews on the Board Game Geek (those which this reviewer summarized), that would be WP:SYNTH. I don't see why a paraphrasing of a reviewer's summary of these critiques shouldn't be admissible as a reasonable and appropriate alternative to synthesizing these myself. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Any admins care to weigh in here? Naturally, I am still hopeful this page will be whitelisted, but I've been awaiting a decision for more than two months and counting. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Need link for biographical article please
- examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Why: This examiner interview was done by the Examiner page author "AC" not copied from elsewhere and I need it to cite a quote and remove citation needed.
Which article: Ross Patterson
Specific link: www.examiner.com/article/exclusive-interview-ross-patterson-talks-poolboy-strippers-hit-the-nuts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housewifehader (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes and I agree with the reasons for white-listing certain domains. The only reason that I want to use this examiner site is because it contains info. that was already in the article and this was the only source that I could find in finding a citation for a fact about an actor. Also, the link that I want to use is "exclusive", original content, (an interview), that is not found elsewhere.TeeVeeed (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello? Everyone OK here? I keep checking but there is a prob. on my contribution list so it is hard to re-find this topic. TYHousewifehader (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- The request is still under consideration. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is the only other article I could find that mentions him using fake IDs: http://nerd-base.com/2012/10/24/27-minutes-in-heaven-with-filmmaker-ross-patterson/ And I'm not entirely sure that's a reliable source. Me5000 (talk) 17:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Use particular examiner.com page
- examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I've never done this before so please correct me if I got something wrong. I'd like to use the examiner.com/article/ttu-vernacular-music-center-holds-first-multi-ensemble-outreach-meeting link to flesh out my reference to that article at the Vernacular Music Center article. I don't know about examiner.com (or why it is blacklisted) but that page looks like a good and suitable source. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
- Examiner contains documents which are often replaceable by other sources - it is blacklisted for spam reasons, and because they provide a spam-incentive (they pay everytime your page on examiner.com is visited, so people were spamming their documents here to get incoming traffic and hence money). We're generally only whitelist if there are absolutely no good replacements - does this give some alternatives? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm moving into a 7-10 day period where my wikipedia work might be sporadic. Might take be a bit of time to sort those out and respond. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I looked at the link that you gave me. Of the 4, one is the subject Wikipedia article, one is the link under discussion, and two are to sites that give the first paragraph and link to the examiner article to read the rest. I'll look some more. North8000 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Looked some more, couldn't find it elsewhere. To recap, I consider using the article to be important. Having a live link to it is less important. So y'all decide....I can live with whatever that decision is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Very scarce subject. I could not find any alternatives for "The Vernacular Music Center was founded at Texas Tech University in the Fall of 2000" Although the source says winter of 2000, so I'm not sure why the Wikipedia page says fall. Me5000 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- The first part of that post adds to the case for white-listing. The second (thanks!) points out an error in the article which I fixed. So the question is still open. To recap, I consider using the article to be important, having a live link to it is less important. So y'all decide....I'm fine with whatever that decision is. North8000 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Very scarce subject. I could not find any alternatives for "The Vernacular Music Center was founded at Texas Tech University in the Fall of 2000" Although the source says winter of 2000, so I'm not sure why the Wikipedia page says fall. Me5000 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Looked some more, couldn't find it elsewhere. To recap, I consider using the article to be important. Having a live link to it is less important. So y'all decide....I can live with whatever that decision is. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I looked at the link that you gave me. Of the 4, one is the subject Wikipedia article, one is the link under discussion, and two are to sites that give the first paragraph and link to the examiner article to read the rest. I'll look some more. North8000 (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm moving into a 7-10 day period where my wikipedia work might be sporadic. Might take be a bit of time to sort those out and respond. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
www.examiner.com/article/mike-scully-talks-the-simpsons-parks-and-recreation-napoleon-dynamite
examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
This is for the article Napoleon Dynamite (TV series). I nominated this page for good article and am trying to improve it. I read /common requests and understand why the site is blacklisted. I am in no way affiliated with the site. The link is an interview with the producer of the series, Mike Scully. The link provides sources that can not be found elsewhere such as the date development of the show began, a direct quote and an additional reason why the Hesses delayed the project. Me5000 (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
www.koolmuzone.pk/about/
koolmuzone.pk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I have started an article on this blog (Koolmuzone) and wanted to link to it. Though I prefer www.koolmuzone.pk to be whitelisted only if it is technically possible while keeping other links blacklisted. --SMS Talk 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
www.plasticsurgery.org/public_education/procedures/BreastReconstruction.cfm
- plasticsurgery.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
This is a web site by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, which represents a very large fraction of plastic surgeons in the United States (they claim 94%). It contains a great deal of information on plastic surgery for consumers of such. I see that there has been some issue with that site in the past (in 2008, but at least one page specific exception has been allowed (www.plasticsurgery.org/x5.xml, in Nov-2009). While there is much general information on the site, and I think the entire site should be allowed, I'd at least like to revert the removal of a link at Breast reconstruction to “www.plasticsurgery.org/public_education/procedures/BreastReconstruction.cfm”. Rwessel (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I am inclined to allow this unless someone sees a reason why not? Stifle (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
examiner.com/about
examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com to facilitate discussion of the site's editorial policy at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Airomo and elsewhere —rybec 21:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Not sure why. That page doesn't really say anything about an editorial policy, and there's nothing preventing anyone from including URLs without the 'http' prefix. The purpose of the whitelist isn't convenience. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Declined per Amatulić and deletion discussion is closed. Me5000 (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- The page says "We have an in-house editorial team that provides guidance and mentorship to the contributors." How is that not saying anything about an editorial policy? The comment about "URLs without the 'http' prefix" applies equally to any request made here. The blacklist isn't for needlessly causing inconvenience by blocking pages that aren't harmful. —rybec 17:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
www.ehow.com/about_5372890_meaning-impounding.html
- ehow.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
Very good article describing how the term Impoundment is used is many aspects of law and how they are related to each other and the non-legal origins of the word. Having trouble finding another web page that does the same. Perfect reference for Impoundment (political).
I don't know about the rest of eHow, but this article has good quality, and the writer clearly has knowledge of the subject. There are no obvious commercial interests (product placement, etc.) on the page. The author bio indicates that independent of the site, she would be a good source:
Cindy Hill
A freelance writer since 1978 and attorney since 1981, Cindy Hill has won awards for articles on organic agriculture and wild foods, and has published widely in the areas of law, public policy, local foods and gardening. She holds a B.A. in political science from State University of New York and a Master of Environmental Law and a J.D. from Vermont Law School.
I have no connection whatsoever to the author.
www.ehow.com/about_5372890_meaning-impounding.html Dovid (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Have you read /Common requests? Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, for noting this, Stifle. Yes I did read it, which is why I specifically addressed the issues suggested there. See above about author credentials, lack of commercial interests. I assert that I have no connection to the author, but I'm not sure how I could prove that. However, if you look at my edit history, you will find 1) extensive edits, 2) no specific bearing on this area beyond recent interest, 3) that the whitelisting is for an article that is tangentially connected to a bunch of other articles that I edited in the same time period that would have no use for this link. Dovid (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
www.reverbnation.com/artist_933689/bio
I would like this link as a citation for one of the albums I played on. THe article that would benefit is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Smith_Curry
Please add the following link to the white list www.reverbnation.com/artist_933689/bio
Domain name is
- reverbnation.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
Climber192 (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Climber192
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Climber192 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
prouty.org/index.html
prouty.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I'm requesting whitelisting the site's main index page, as an alternative to de-listing, in response to back-and-forth OTRS communication with a representative of prouty.org. The site was blacklisted for hosting an attack page of a critic, and while that attack page is still there, the site overall serves as a reference site for information about Col. L. Fletcher Prouty. It seems natural for the L. Fletcher Prouty article to have a link to that site. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
www.examiner.com/article/julianne-moore-talks-about-playing-a-bad-mother-what-maisie-knew
examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
This is clearly a legitimate interview with Julianne Moore, and it is the longest, best interview I have come across with the actress talking about this role. I would like to use it to add information/comments to the Moore article. --Lobo (talk) 18:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
www.hastingsobserver.co.uk/news/local/campaigners-hand-over-petition-in-a-bid-to-protect-speckled-wood-in-ore-1-4236497
hastingsobserver.co.uk: 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 link is to a well reputed News Paper in the United Kingdom. It has been used to show the current situation in regard the Speckled Wood article. It seems quite natural to use a link to a news paper and this link should not be blacklisted. Section5drummer (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not blacklisted, this is a mis-catch by the tagging-bot (I have already repeatedly poked the bot owner to untag the articles with mistaken tags). Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
cable-car-guy
cable-car-guy.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
The blacklist is currently blocking all guy (dot) com adresses, I've posted here but nothing was done, and now cyberbot has tagged it again, with someone this time removing the link (Trams in Melbourne amongst other pages). I'd like to put the link back, but the blacklist issue needs to be sorted, I don't see why every domain ending in guy (dot) com is even blocked, but can someone either whitelist cable-car-guy (dot) com or remove guy (dot) com from the blacklist. Liamdavies (talk) 07:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This is not a false positive.—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Approved requests
aese2006.geology-guy.com/sd_geology_marshall.htm
- aese2006.geology-guy.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
- geology-guy.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
- aese2006.geology-guy.com/sd_geology_marshall.htm is a link to a scholarly paper by a professor at San Diego State University. It is cited twice in discussing the geology of San Diego at San Diego#Geography. It was recently tagged as a spam link by Cyberbot II. It is valuable to that article and there is no other comparable authority we could cite. San Diego is a Good Article and I wish to maintain it as one. I can't imagine why the link was identified as spam. Please delist it if you can, or else tell me what I can do to find an acceptable link. Thank you. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is the second instance (see above entry) that I was unable to find on the local or global blacklist; I suspect the bot is producing some false positives. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Followup: indeed; based on [blacklist filter], any .com link containing "guy" will trigger it...seems a bit drastic. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- I see below another apparent false positive based on the "guy" blacklist. What has to be done to get that removed from the blacklist? And what was the rationale behind it anyhow? There must be thousands of perfectly innocent domains that contain "guy". They shouldn't all have to come here and bother you folks for a whitelisting. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Done OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
- I see below another apparent false positive based on the "guy" blacklist. What has to be done to get that removed from the blacklist? And what was the rationale behind it anyhow? There must be thousands of perfectly innocent domains that contain "guy". They shouldn't all have to come here and bother you folks for a whitelisting. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- Followup: indeed; based on [blacklist filter], any .com link containing "guy" will trigger it...seems a bit drastic. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Denied requests
youtu.be/fkSJpty5fck
youtu.be: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I would like to use this link on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gen_Con article. Tom Vasel is a renowned individual in the tabletop gaming industry and breaks down attendance numbers, game releases, event activity, etc. This news video would be excellent to use as a reference for the Gen Con link. Thanks! Roy D Anderson (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not needed, you can use http://youtube.com/watch?v=fkSJpty5fck. Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Expired requests (not done due to lack of reply)
Withdrawn, malformed, invalid, or stale requests
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/13/rick-perry-doesnt-support-secession-petition-on-white-house-website/comment-page-4/
Domain name:
- cnn.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
- blogs.cnn.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
- politicalticker.blogs.cnn.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 most likely blocked because it is a blog, but it is run by CNN, which is probably a reliable source for the article, 2012 state petitions for secession. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, false positive, the link is not blocked, this is a link that is wrongly tagged by the tagging bot (the bot thinks that everything with the word petition in it is blocked, which is not true). Not done --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
www.tennessean.com/article/20121113/NEWS01/311130073/Governor-not-signing-Tennessee-s-secession-petition
Domain name: tennessean.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 also blocked on the article 2012 state petitions for secession. I'm not really sure why, as The Tennessean is Nashville's major newspaper. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- As above, this is a false positive, the link is not blocked, this is a link that is wrongly tagged by the tagging bot. Not done --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks! - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
dailystar.com.lb/Culture/Travel-and-Tourism/2011/Nov-09/153409-ngo-petitions-to-protect-alleged-phoenician-wall.ashx#axzz20djNikM0
This link has been blacklisted on the wikipage of the Association for the protection of the Lebanese Heritage. Can you kindly white list it as it comes from a very respectable source which is the only english daily newspaper in Lebanon: The Daily Star. Sorry I am no wiki guru and hope that this message can still be taken into consideration. Many thanks for the help Iucncanada (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)Iucncanada
- This link is wrongly tagged as blacklisted by a bot, it is not blacklisted. Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C
archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/ngo-petitions-to-protect-phoenician.html#.UAH7dPUn2KI
This link has been blacklisted on the wikipage of the Association for the protection of the Lebanese Heritage. Can you kindly white list it as it comes from a reliable source. Many thanks for the help Iucncanada (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Iucncanada
- This link is wrongly tagged as blacklisted by a bot, it is not blacklisted. Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C
king5.com/news/local/Vigil-Petitions-Aimed-at-Freeing-Jason-Puracal-167930795.html
king5.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 link has been blacklisted incorrectly. King 5 is a Washington news website that is very reputable. This specific article is about a wrongly convicted American from the Seattle area. I'd like to use this news clip as a citation in this article. Thanks. Cdean14 (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think this is blacklisted, but likely a mis-catch on another rule, resulting in bot-tagging. Not done for now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is indeed not blacklisted, hence now officially Not done. I have asked the bot-owner again to double-check these mistaken taggings and remove them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)
Troubleshooting and problems
Discussion
What is taking so long?
I want to cite Blythe. Do we need more moderators here?TCO (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- Perennial problem, but the answer is: Yes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- Gymnastics Examiner still not processed 3 months later. Did you all change your mind? There is no funny business. It has a very sober tone. Is run by a journalist who has press passes to major events (the USAG federation uses social media...Wiki should even look into some liason for photos). I'm not a political POV person or someone trying to make money or the like.TCO (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Gymnastics Examiner still not working
This request was marked as approved (with some note of wait for someone to implement) on 03MAR. It remained like that for several months. It was now just recently archived along with a general page cleanup. I went and tested a link and it is still not working. Help.
TCO (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Shortage of people actively maintaining the white and blacklists. I have now Done this addition. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
How long does it take to get an answer?
Hello, I am sorry to be impatient, but I am wondering how long it takes to get an answer for the submitted link. There isn't a backlog here and reviewing the link takes, I'm guessing, less than 5 minutes. Me5000 (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- When I see a request for an examiner.com link like you posted, it goes to the bottom of my mental priority queue. All too often, I am able to find perfectly adequate alternatives that are not blacklisted, and spending effort to do that requires far more than 5 minutes. I'm not inclined to compensate for the laziness of others, although occasionally I do (see the request just above yours, for example). Even if someone claims the information is not available elsewhere, all too often I find that claim to be false, and verifying the truth of such a claim takes a long time. I'm not saying that's applicable to your specific case, but if other admins have had similar experiences with examiner.com requests, I offer it up as a reason why you are waiting so long. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- I was starting to wonder the same thing since my request, at a month old, is by far the oldest of only four requests that still have no response. I guess Amatulić just answered why. I've checked for alternative sources, I've checked the FAQ and the reasons why Examiner.com was blacklisted, and I have been unable to find any alternative to whitelisting this page, which does seem to fit criteria for whitelisting. I don't know what else I can do to help out. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 21:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's unfortunate. I've been checking this page 2-3 times a day since I posted the request and would much rather use an alternative link than wait. Considering my particular page is an interview and I'm using a direct quote there is no alternative. I have even found other interviews and used a couple in the article, but none of them have the exact information I need for parts of the page. Obviously, you have to verify that yourself and can't take my word for it though. I was really hoping to get it quickly white listed, especially since I nominated my article for GA. I will try to be more patient. Me5000 (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there some way I can help out?
Hello, Is there some way I can help out here? I have learned that reviewing links takes awhile and many editors don't want to mess with it, so what can I do to help out on this page? Is any editor allowed to review the links and make decisions? Me5000 (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Non admins are welcome to comment and make recommendations, but admins must make the final decisions.
- If you can find alternative sources for some of the links requested here, that would encourage the requester to withdraw the request, or make it easier for an administrator to decline it. Links to whitelist examiner.com pages often have alternatives that will work if you look hard enough.
- I've always thought that this page could use "clerks", trusted editors who are empowered to decline requests with good reason, or recommend white-listing. That's the way it works over at WP:SPI. There are clerks (in this case non-checkusers) who can decline requests for checkusers, or recommend that a checkuser get involved, to make the checkusers' job easier.
- But as long as we don't have clerks, there's still nothing preventing you from helping out by researching sources, engaging in discussion with requesters, and making recommendations to admins. I say, go right ahead! Help is welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Can I close any requests?
I know I was told admins make the final decision, but I'm wondering if I am allowed to close out the easy ones? For example, the one about the Penn Creek Massacre. I think that was an easy deny and close in the first place, but now it's definitely a deny and close, as it's already been changed to my suggestion. Then there's one where more information was asked for on 8/14, it looks like generally you wait 10 days then close it out due to no response (rwservices.no-ip.info). It just seems to me like if it's a really easy one like I just described there's not much point in requiring an admin to close it out. Me5000 (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
- I guess no answer means no. Oh well, I was just trying to make it easier for the admin here because he doesn't seem to have much time. Me5000 (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
- Me5000, all help would be great, both here and on the blacklist. Here for example, closing the ones which are just unsuitable (because there are alternatives, they are requests for whitelisting a redirect site, etc.) would be helpful, as well as assessing the ones which should be whitelisted (in the form of a bit of explanation and a recommendation with enough information so that admins can just perform the action without too much further research. On the blacklist that would be similar (both for the to-be-blacklisted links as for the proposed removals). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Other projects with active whitelists
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)
Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards
- If you have a source in which you have a legitimate reason that it meets Wikipedia's guideline on reliability, feel free to bring the issue to the Reliable sources noticeboard.
- Likewise, if you have a source in which you have a legitimate reason that it meets Wikipedia's guideline on external links, feel free to bring the issue to the External links noticeboard.
If your whitelist request falls under one of these two categories, the admins will be more willing to have the source whitelisted if you can acheive consensus at one of the above noticeboards. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk)
)