MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:12, 24 February 2009 editAbd (talk \| contribs)14,259 edits →lyrikline.org page for Chirikure Chirikure: arrgh. After suggesting whitelisting the whole project? Yes, bot. We need "proof" of no possible linkspamming?← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:19, 8 January 2025 edit undoPppery (talk \| contribs)Interface administrators, Administrators100,839 edits →Just Jared: Added using SWHandler
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Spam-whitelist header}}		{{Spam-whitelist header}}
			{{no admin backlog}}
	]
			{{NOINDEX}}
	]
			{{YesAutosign}}
	<div id="Proposed additions"/>
			{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
			\|archiveprefix=MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/
			\|format=Y/m
			\|age=1000
			\|header={{archive}}
			\|headerlevel=2
			}}
			== Proposed additions ==
			{{anchor\|Proposed additions}}

			If you have a source that you would like to add to the spam-whitelist, but you are uncertain that it meets Misplaced Pages's guideline on ], please ask for opinions on the ], to confirm that it does meet that guideline, before submitting your whitelisting request here. In your request, link to the confirming discussion on that noticeboard.
	== Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock) ==
	{{messagebox
	\|text=This section is for proposing that a website be whitelisted; add new entries at the '''''bottom''''' of this '''section'''. Please use the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Completed requests will be marked with an appropriate ] then ].
	;Instructions to requesters<nowiki>:</nowiki>
	# Explain why the site should be whitelisted.
	# Explain '''which articles''' would benefit from the addition of the link.
	# Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.
	''If the above information is not provided expect your request to be declined.''}}

			Likewise, if you have an external link that you are uncertain meets Misplaced Pages's guideline on ], please get confirmation on the ] before submitting your whitelisting request here.
	<!-- PLEASE ADD NEW ENTRIES TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST -->
	<!-- PLEASE SIGN YOUR ENTRY WITH FOUR TILDES: ~~~~ : -->
	<!-- Tildes are the shifted character located to the left of the "1" in top row of keys on the US keyboard layout, others may vary -->
	<!-- PLEASE ADD NEW ENTRIES TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST -->

			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 achieve consensus at one of the above noticeboards.



			{{messagebox
			\|text=Add new entries at the '''''bottom''''' of this '''page'''. Completed requests will be marked with an appropriate ] then ].

			; Instructions to requesters<nowiki>:</nowiki>
			# Explain '''why''' the site should be whitelisted.
			# Explain '''which articles''' would benefit from the addition of the link.
			# Provide the '''specific link''' to the page you're requesting be added.
			#* Please use the basic URL so that there is no link (www.google.ca, not http://www.google.ca).
			#* Please add a {{tlx\|LinkSummary\|example.org}} (replace example.org with the ''domain'' your specific url resides on, and remove the 'www.' part, and everything following the domain-name). This inserts a set of links that helps in finding relevant information and related discussion on the requested site.

			''If the above information is not provided, expect your request to be declined.''

			PLEASE ADD NEW ENTRIES TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST
			PLEASE SIGN YOUR ENTRY WITH FOUR TILDES: ~~<nowiki/>~~}}

			== snot.xyz ==
	===Whitehat.servehttp.com===
			*{{LinkSummary\|snot.xyz}}
	This site has really nothing to do with stuff really but i used it on some page that had to do with math bases and the site has a base calculator but its got a base converter here: /calculators/ABC.html and on some pages theres links to stuff like that on random sites. THe main reason I'm requesting this to be whitelisted is because it was blacklisted simply because its a free domain name. And remember: whitehat.servehttp.com is what i want whitelisted, NOT *.whitehat.com because im sure that people use that to spam. My main argument is that this is not a spam site ] (]) 13:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
			# This page should be whitelisted because it's the official website of rapper ]. Other artists have their websites displayed in their infobox with an .xyz domain, like rapper ]. It makes sense for the same for Snot. ] (]) 16:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	* There are plenty of other sites with similar calculators, many of them academic, not commercial. That domain has been problematic in the past, so I'd encourage you to explore the alternatives. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
	** Why was it problematic? I have never seen it used before i used it. ] (]) 13:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
	** Hello? ] (]) 03:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC) <s><small>This message was added by ] and not Deo Favente </small></s> Yes it was added by me ] (]) 04:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

			:{{rto\|RodeoWrld}} {{Added}} to ]. --] ] 23:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Deo, what's the page you want whitelisted? I tried accessing <tt>whitehat.servehttp.com/calculators/ABC.html</tt> and got back
	::::* ''"The requested URL /calculators/ABC.html was not found on this server."''
	::::--<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 02:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
	* {{declined}}. We had precisely this discussion quite recently. There are thousands of calculators available from sites that are not blacklisted for abuse, please choose one of those. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

	==~~= Toolquarter~~.com ===		==www.infowars.com/about==
			* {{LinkSummary\|infowars.com}}
	Dear administration of Misplaced Pages,
			* {{WLRequestLink\|www.infowars.com/about}}
	today I found out this link is on the blacklist of Misplaced Pages. I see no reason for this. Adding it to the articles concerning the Tool band, seems to be impossible now, altough this website could add something to the articles. It's all about discussing on ToolQuarter, but that's what makes Tool the band it is today. It's a complex band and people often want to share opinions and visions about it. The article on Misplaced Pages is far too objective on the band. I'm sure people interested in the article about Tool would be interested in reading some other visions on the music. Their are several essay's to find on it and these texts can make a difference for the articles here on Misplaced Pages. For instance this writing on the song 46&2; url here/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=144. I don't see why this couldn't be interesting for Misplaced Pages.
			The link in the Official website template at the bottom of the ] article contains a link to infowars/contributors, which currently does not exist. I'd appreciate it if someone replaces that link with /about, which does exist. While the /about page isn't exactly the most neutral thing out there, it's definitely more neutral than most of the content on that website and isn't unnaceptably problematic in my view. ] (]'''-''']) 06:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

			:{{declined}} for now. I'd say let's hold off for a few months. The site is in flux since theonion.com acquired it, and it is going to be shut down and resurrected in 2025. Let's see what they do with it first. In the meantime, we could probably whitelist an archived page, like the contributors page that no longer exists. ~] <small>(])</small> 06:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
	Thanks.
			:: The existing whitelisting of the /contributors already covers archived versions: https://web.archive.org/web/20200831191205/https://www.infowars.com/contributors/ ] ] 06:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
	] (]) 21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
			:::I've ] with that archive link. Side note: a judge has paused the purchase and it is currently under review, so Alex Jones is still the website's operator at the moment. We'll see what happens in the future. ] (]'''-''']) 06:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

			==www.change.org/p/a-call-for-justin-welby-to-resign==
	:Was added to several wikis by a handful of IPs. Not deemed to be too useful. Could some editors from ] have a look at this? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 11:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
			* {{LinkSummary\|change.org}}
			* {{WLRequestLink\|www.change.org/p/a-call-for-justin-welby-to-resign}}
			Hi, I would like to request the petition on change.org for the resignation of Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, to be whitelisted. I'd like to use the link on ] which I have just created, and add it to ] and ]. The creation of a petition calling for an archbishop's resignation was extremely notable, especially as (1) it was started by three clergymen in his province, (2) it received widespread coverage in many reputable media outlets, and (3) he did resign just a few days later. Being able to reference it directly will (in my view) improve Misplaced Pages. I am aware that change.org is listed under common requests to be denied, but in this instance, I believe it is an exceptional situation. This petition was closely associated with a significant event that was without precedent and will be studied for many years to come. The page on change.org includes the creators' reasons why they felt Welby should resign and so it is highly relevant to understanding this historic event. Hence I believe it should be allowed. If the link is whitelisted, I will also add some secondary sources about the petition to confirm its notability. ] (]) 20:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

			:{{rto\|SmilingFace}} {{Declined}} Misplaced Pages is not an advocacy venue, as linking to an active petition would inevitably be (I'm not claiming that's what you're trying to do, I'm claiming it's what the effect would be). If you have secondary sources describing the petition's significance, you can just link to those instead. ] ] 20:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
	: With all respect, but the visions on the many tool songs cán add something to the specific song-articles. Visions of fans are more important then facts on songs I know for a looong time now. I'm pretty sure others think about it in the same way as I do. Btw, soon there's going to be a fanpage, with lots of information on the band. Would that be useful then? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:: Hi, This is not about advocacy. Whilst the petition is technically still active, it is no longer relevant as Welby has said he will resign. This news is so notable that it is still on the front page of Misplaced Pages, despite it being 5 days old now! I have added some secondary sources referencing the petition, but none contain the text of what the petition's creators actually wrote, which is historically significant in a digital age. So being able to link it will improve our articles about this important event. It's a bit like linking to one of Donald Trump's tweets, which are similarly of historic significance and allowed. Please can you reconsider. ] (]) 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
	:Oh, I am not saying that that it is not correct, I'd just like to hear some input from others. Could you contact the wikiproject? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 12:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
			:::Again, {{declined}}. If none of the sources referencing the petition found the actual text in it important enough to quote, why should Misplaced Pages make the opposite editorial judgment? We shouldn't need to link to Trump's tweets either, especially when they are widely quoted. The fact that we do link to them is a reason to remove them, not a reason to compound the problem with similar links to petition. ~] <small>(])</small> 16:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

			==www.thepointsguy.com/news/eva-air-new-business-suites-777-cabin-refresh/==
	Hey, Sean here. I totally think that the website should be removed from the blacklist. Any (trustworthy) website regarding information on the subject of an article should be taken into account. toolquarter.com seems trustworthy enough, and if it turns out to be false, then we can always change the information back, can't we? ] ] 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
	:Based on ], it appears this was used for major cross-wiki spamming. Can we get clarification as to how this is a ]? Also, if you want the entire domain delisted you need to ask at ]; this page is to request that one or a few pages be permitted, and if that's the case, please say which pages. ] (]) 16:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

			{{LinkSummary\|thepointsguy.com}}
	:* I just declined removal at the meta blacklist. The rationale there was about the same: a place where people talk about the band. We do not generally link fansites or forums, I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

			• {{WLRequestLink\|https://thepointsguy.com/news/eva-air-new-business-suites-777-cabin-refresh/}}
	: The site is going to be updated soon, with lots of articles and stuff. I might revisit these talks for asking removal then.
	:: {{Declined}} Fansites are not ]. <b>] ]</b> 15:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

			Hi I was about to update ] article about the refurbishment of existing four B787-9 with premium Economy seats. I searched and this is the only reference I could find with the latest info. I request the above link to be whitewashed. Thanks, ] (]) 22:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
	=== mohanpai. sulekha. com ===
	I ran into a blacklisted link to a beautifull article by Mohan Pai with provides a lot of the more fundamental information of a section in ]. This information can not be found elsewhere. Request to unblock http:// mohanpai. sulekha .com/blog/post/2009/01/the-western-ghats-by-mohan-pai-hill-stations.htm ] (]) 22:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
	*Blogs are not generally considered ]. Can you explain why this is different? ] (]) 13:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
	* You are right. But that has nothing to do with blacklisting. And this article is very good, blog or no. ] (]) 18:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
	::Stifle is right. Blogs are not reliable sources and can't be used, unless in some rare cases. I suggest you check ], ], ], and ]. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 19:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
	: Many blogs are very good and may be used. They are not the most reliable sources, but they are not forbidden. Check yourself. ] (]) 07:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
	: From my talk page. <blockquote>Don't think I was being too serious in calling anybody a "snob". That's why I said it only in the edit summary. To let show that they don't have to be holier than the pope. A blog is not a forbidden source. I quote "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution". In the case of that link listed as spam, it's a very informative site and a shame to wave it away by saying "blog, blog". No offense intended.</blockquote>] (]) 16:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

	~~Administrators..~~.? ] (]) 10:18, 16 ~~February~~ ~~2009~~ (UTC)		:{{rto\|Now wiki}} {{Added}} to ]. --] ] 22:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

			::{{rto\|Pppery}} Thanks! ] (]) 22:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
	::Debresser, a suggestion. I'm working on overall blacklisting and whitelisting procedures, and consider refusal of whitelisting to enforce rigid interpretations of ] as problematic; as you know, links are not only used for RS references and may be appropriate under some circumstances even if biased, self-published, etc. If you want a whitelisting soon, make a specific edit to an article, using the link with nowiki tags surrounding it, or without the http://. (The blacklist only affects actual links.) You might consider, then, reverting yourself, as well as discussing it on the Talk page of the article, explain what you are doing, that the site is blacklisted, etc. Then provide a diff to the edit here, so that your exact proposal can be seen in context. At least, then, if the request is still denied, you have something clear to appeal through ]. --] (]) 15:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

			== bigredbook.info ==
	:Hi, ]. I didn't really understand you. But I do have a diff where I reverted myself , and the edit summary mentions blacklisting. Does this help? ] (]) 19:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
			* {{LinkSummary\|bigredbook.info}}
	:: I understand him perfectly. Unfortunately this is a red herring. Abd has misread a couple of situations and embarked on an unfortunate crusade. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
			* {{WLRequestLink\|bigredbook.info/freddie_mills.html}}
	I have reverted the edit, Debresser, the reference as it was, was already OK, in the new form it 'broke' the reference to something unreadable. What Stifle and Kanonkas mean above is, can you explain why the information that is provided on this blog is 'true', 'verifyable'? You are all right that blogs are sometimes suitable as reliable sources, but there (apparently) have been problems with other blogs on this site.
			* {{WLRequestLink\|bigredbook.info/images/series6/freddiemills1.jpg}}

			I'm adding citations and references to the article on ], and there is a statement about Collier's relationship with ] and their appearance on "]".
	None of us here wants to imply, or suggest that the information on this specific page is not reliable, it is just that you are the best to person to tell us ''why'' this information is considered reliable. I hope this explains. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 10:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

			The pages I'm after are a description of the episode, and a picture, which clearly shows Collier with Mills.
	I really do not understand the question. I have allready expressed my opinion about this link. Do you want me to go into details? Is that what is needed here? If that is so, than even more so do I not uderstand you. You have the information in the article, you have the information in the link. You don't need me to explain to you that the information in the link is what is in the article. And you have the article to see for yourself how important this information is to it. So what is it you want from me? All I want is to whiten a perfectly good and valuable link. If fell like "guilty till proven innocent". Which in a way is true, because the link is blacklisted. But I don't have to fight for it. All is there for you to see. I allready made clear what should be done. ] (]) 12:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

			] (]) 08:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	:What we mean, Debresser, is if the information on the blog is reliable, true. I can write a blog entry, filled with complete rubbish. I can't decide on the information contained in this blog if it is true, or rubbish. Of course it fits with what you say in the document (you use it as a source), and of course it is then imporant for it, but if the content of the blog is untrue, unverifyable, then the blog is unsuitable as a ref, and the content in the wikidocument is probably also not true. So the question is 'why do you think that the information in the blog is reliable?' I hope this explains. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

			:{{rto\|B800h}} {{Added}} to ]. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 10:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
	At last somebody to speak clear Dutch (ik bedoel Engels). This author has published a book, which is part of the Delhi Public Library, see , number 168. The blog has the same title, and may safely be presumed to be closely connected to this book. As the book is part of an established public library, it would be safe to consider it a reliable source. ] (]) 01:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
	: (1) A book being in a library catalog doesn't automatically make it a reliable source. (2) I can create a blog with the same title as a book; that doesn't make it a reliable source. The exception would be if there is evidence that the blog is written by or officially sanctioned by the author, in which case it may be a reliable source for related material. <b>] ]</b> 01:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

			== <nowiki>http://web.archive.org/web/20181122011535/http://hurryupharry.org/2008/08/27/going-nowhere/</nowiki> ==
	If you want to suggest that the blog is not the authors you ''are out of your mind'', that is, you have a serious case of being paranoid. And I have had it with admins that deliberately choose to obstruct the free flow of good and legal information for the only purpose of showing me that they not only do not understand the spirit of the Misplaced Pages guidelines involved but not even their letter. Don't want to whitelist the link, don't. Want to, do it and fix it in the article. I thank you beforehand for being so much smarter than the other admins before you. ] (]) 09:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
	: I don't think anyone is suggesting that. The issue is ]. Not even the ''massive'' amount of advertising on that page figures here, just the fact that it's a blog so not a reliable source. If the facts are in the book then simply cite the book, that's certainly permissible. Once a site has been abused we need a really good reason to override the blacklist for any link, as I'm sure you understand, and that must start by verifying that the link meets policy. Here, you have been informed by several long-standing contributors that it does not appear to meet the relevant guidelines. Sure, it's a bit of a catch-22 - if the information is not available elsewhere then is it verifiable and ]; if it is available elsewhere then cite the elsewhere. But actually that's not a bad rule of thumb: anything which is available only form a single blog, is probably not something we should be including at all, and anything that is available either from a blog or from a print published source should almost always be cited to the print published source due to the transient nature of blogs. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

			* {{LinkSummary\|hurryupharry.org}}
	I understand you. The blog is a lot more readily available than the book, obviously, and I do not own the book to be able to say whether perhaps the blog contains more information than the book, or to at least add references to the book in stead of those to the blog.
			* {{WLRequestLink\|http://web.archive.org/web/20181122011535/http://hurryupharry.org/2008/08/27/going-nowhere/}}
			The link to hurryupharry org is dead on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Harry%27s_Place&action=edit&section=4 , however because it is backlisted, I cannot even use the waybackmachine link to update it.Had to put a space between hurryup and harry as I can't even make this request if I leave them in!

			] (]) 19:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC) furbian ] (]) 19:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
	I do not understand why sites are blacklisted at all, which may be part of the reason I do not understand the great reluctance of admins to unblock a site upon request. ] (]) 10:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
			: {{added}} ] ] 20:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			== <nowiki>www.kickstarter.com/projects/massivemonsters/the-adventure-pals-a-story-of-love-giraffes-and-ho</nowiki> ==
	===holocaustresearchproject.org/trials/konradmorgen.html===
	I would like to requeat that the above link be white-listed, because it contains information relating to ]. I was not aware of Misplaced Pages's "blacklisting" policy until I attempted to add the aforementioned link as a source for Morgen's attendance at the Hague Academy of International Law, specifically on the ] page. I have tried to find another website with the needed information, but I could only find Misplaced Pages sites and others which "mirror" its content. --] (]) 02:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
	* The issue here is that there are two competing claims to ownership of te content of that site, much of which is editorialised anyway, and they brought their fight here. I am sure you can find a better source, perhaps the source they themselves cite. A link is not necessary, just a citation to a reliable source (which that site is not, according to the comments we have form the competing webmasters). <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

			* {{LinkSummary\|kickstarter.com}}
	=== british-tv.suite101.com/article.cfm/law_order_uk_review_episode_1 ===
			* {{WLRequestLink\|www.kickstarter.com/projects/massivemonsters/the-adventure-pals-a-story-of-love-giraffes-and-ho}}
	This is a review of the limited premiere of the new TV series '']''. Reading into the specific author of this post seems to me to be ]. While, only after reading the derision of the root suite101.com, I would prefer a review from a source not so disliked, I have not found any thus far. — ''']''' <sup>\|''' ]'''</sup> \| 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
			For use as a primary source on the article '']'' due to a lack of readily available better sources. Also for use as a source in a non-free image description for uploading the game's cover. ] (]) 20:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

			:{{rto\|ToThAc}} {{Added}} to ]. --] ] 18:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I found this from ] -- does that work for you? This looks like a new show in the U.K. -- there may be some more reviews in the next several week, perhaps? --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
	:: It's a good piece, and I may incorporate some of it into the article. But the former review has some specific information that the latter doesn't (episode names, plot specifics, the original episode's name, and some more). Will all this information come out again after public airing? Maybe, but as the show is British, I'm unfamiliar with the outlets used and could easily miss it when/if it does come out.<p>Am I allowed to make a compromise? We use some "okay" sourcing sometimes in the absence of "good/great" sourcing until the latter is published or is simply found. Can I link this source (I'm using it already, just unlinked) under the stipulation that I'll remove it once I (or other editors) find equitable content from a less contentious publisher? — ''']''' <sup>\|''' ]'''</sup> \| 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
	* {{declined}}. Suite 101 is problematic to say the least (including offering a per-click bounty, apparently), and this does not appear to be a reliable source. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

			== cro.media/shopify-history/ ==
	=== lyrikline.org page for ] ===
			*{{LinkSummary \| cro.media }}
	www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=60&L=1&author=cc00&cHash=efa2be756d

			{{WLRequestLink\|cro.media/shopify-history/}}
	This is a link to the page at ] for the Shona poet ], which I would consider an outstanding enhancement, as an External Link, to our article on the poet. From prior lyrikline discussions, I can anticipate the following objections:
	*''Lyrikline was linkspammed.'' There is no question but that a single editor added large numbers of links, cross-wiki, thus reasonably resulting in a global blacklisting; however, this is not relevant to a local whitelisting request, which should only consider whether or not the specific proposed usage is appropriate here.
	*''Lyrikline hosts copyright violations.'' The poems I've seen have copyright notices, including the page requested for whitelisting, material was contributed by the authors, etc. Given the notability and visibility of ], and its governmental and other institutional support, that they would be hosting copyright violations seems quite unlikely. ] states that ''if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.'' There is no reason to suspect that this page contains copyright violating material, much less to ''know'' that.
	*''Misplaced Pages is ].'' There are no other external links in this article, and I doubt that a better one is likely to be found, and even if it were, that would make two good links, not a linkfarm. ] encourages appropriate external links where they enhance articles, and this lyrikline page meets this standard, with its audio of the poets reading their own poetry, text of poems and translations, plus their additional material on the poets (and we might bring some of that material here, I'd consider Lyrikline.org a ]).

			This page should be whitelisted as it is the only decent source for showing Shopify History Infographics <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
	Personal note: I recommend the poem Hakurarwi. Thanks. --] (]) 03:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
	*''Links should be discussed in article Talk before addition.'' I've on Talk for the article. Because that's probably a low-watched article, I also posted at , as suggested by ], , all very low traffic, and with somewhat higher traffic. No response so far, but certainly no page-specific objection. --] (]) 21:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

			:{{Declined}} Your edits here speak for themselves. ] ] 20:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
	:I would suggest to bring Lyrikline.org to an appropriate wikiproject (I know that Abd already did this), and if they consider the link useful to whitelist the whole domain for use on en (like has been done on de.wikipedia), then that is the way forward. The site contains proper information, mostly available in English, and is suitable both as a reference, or in other cases, as an external link. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 11:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
	::Thanks. Because the projects are asleep, I'm asking for this one whitelisting as a toe in the water. If an admin does decide to whitelist the whole site here (and I'd agree that this is appropriate for the reasons Beetstra stated), then I'd agree to watch for abusive links. Whitelisting the whole site will be much more efficient, because there are hundreds of potential usages here, see ]. --] (]) 13:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

			== <nowiki>filesusr.com</nowiki> ==
	* And where's the documentary evidence of copyright release and compliance again? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
	::Where is the requirement of such? Policy? Guideline? I've looked. See the copyright argument above. Then, first of all, the site hosts poetry audio files ''read by the author,'' specifically contributed by the author. Look at the poem Hakurarwi, as an example.<br>
	::www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=162&L=1&author=cc00&show=Poems&poemId=3122&cHash=d6d6fd3645<br>
	::Copyright notice is shown and audio production shown. ''The author contributed the material.'' "Literaturwerkstatt Berlin" started up Lyrikline. Note that if ] is hosting substantial copyvio, we are violating copyvio policy by linking to such a site in the article, so you could take this up with ], who whitelisted that, or with de.wikipedia, which has many links to lyrikline.org pages, or with ] who is suggesting whitelisting the whole site here. It would certainly simplify things.
	::The following legal statement is at lyrikline.org/index.php?id=63&L=1
	:::Both the content and structure of lyrikline.org are copyright protected; all rights reserved. The duplication, distribution, and republication of all content and structural elements – in particular texts, parts of texts, audio or video material, graphics, or design elements – is prohibited if copyright-protected under German copyright law. This is particularly true for using material from lyrikline.org on other private websites.
	:::lyrikline.org is an internationally operating network committed to protecting the rights of copyright holders, and does the utmost to insure that rights are secured for all content on the website – poems, translations, audio recordings, and photographs. But because of the differing legal situations from country to country, mistakes in attributing rights can take place, despite intense research. We apologize for any such omission; please inform us if you become aware of such an error.
	::Are you suggesting, JzG, that the winner of the 2005 Grimme Online Award (the same Institute that gives the ] for TV), supported by governmental agencies and the ], and highly visible, is hosting massive copyvio, and that the possibility that some error has occurred somewhere should prevent us from linking to the site? Are you suggesting that they would not immediately remove violating material if it came to their attention?
	::The way I read our guidelines and copyright law and precedent, we may not link to a site which is ''known'' to be violating copyright, and the existence of possible isolated violations doesn't count. (No such specific violations have been asserted.) Somehow this has gotten converted, in the minds of a few, to a prohibition against linking to sites where there isn't ''proof'' that they are ''not'' violating copyright, and, in fact, such proof is probably impossible without massive research and legal opinion. No, JzG, the presumption, rebuttable, is that there is no violation. You have raised this issue before with another blacklisting, and it was considered irrelevant there as well. Please don't raise this red herring again, unless you have some actual proof. --] (]) 02:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

			* {{LinkSummary\|filesusr.com}}
	:Abd, I do think that it is a proper question. The site was abused, and the question was raised if the site does have the right to publish this copyrighted information. If then the site needs to be whitelisted, while that copyright question is still there, then the check is totally appropriate, and if that part of the question can't be properly answered, I would be reluctant. However, you have shown that the site has been allowed to publish the material, and I do believe that this site does try to be in line with the law, hence I don't think that ''that'' is resolved here. Any answer on one of the Poets/Literature projects/portals? Or is it an idea to poke some specialists in this field directly? --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
			* {{WLRequestLink\|filesusr.com}}
	::Dirk, thanks. The question would be proper if it hadn't been raised before by JzG, who has repeatedly asserted that some kind of ''proof'' is required of copyright compliance, when this is not at all reflected in the guidelines, actually libelously asserting copyright violation without any evidence of that other than his own unsupported opinion. However, I don't mind citing the evidence. Now, as to the requests for comment. No, no response from any place where the issue has been raised, here. Normally, I should be able to insert a reasonable link without such extensive effort to gain community comment. Nobody has claimed that this specific link is actually inappropriate here. Specialists in the field? What field? What is the question that would be asked? I see no reason for continued blocking of lyrikline.org on en.wikipedia, so whitelisting the domain is requested, which, of course, does not give me permission to massively insert links, that's a separate issue. If any admin is not willing to whitelist the whole domain, though I can't fathom why that would be, given what has been shown, then the specific link requested should be whitelisted. It's been six days. If admins here are too busy, I can go to ] and recruit one.
			For use as a primary source in ] (through a web.archive.org permalink), which hosted several issues of its magazine on filesusr.com. See . ] (]) 05:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
	::If I'm correct, the line to be added to the whitelist for the whole site would be:<br>
			: We definitely aren't going to whitelist the whole site. That's way too broad. {{pb}} We might whitelist specific deeplinked URLs if they are warranted, but the use case of ] isn't convincing right now - that section as is is veering toward ] territory. ] ] 21:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	::\blyrikline\.org\b<br>
			:: {{ping\|Pppery}} Could you whitelist <nowiki>https://web.archive.org/web/20211018203107/https://70cf60ca-3001-416d-af98-7ea84644f715. filesusr.com/ugd/b7a8af_33481c194d7d4e5e9bc278a434cdb66b.pdf</nowiki> and <nowiki>https://web.archive.org/web/20241220052515/https://70cf60ca-3001-416d-af98-7ea84644f715. filesusr.com/ugd/b7a8af_c27c23896eef4274a48e401bf67f8f21.pdf</nowiki> then? ] (]) 22:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	::and the line for the specific link would be:
			::: I'm not convinced of the use case - ] is already too much of a collection of links for my taste. ] ] 22:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	::lyrikline\.org/index\.php\?id=60&L=1&author=cc00&cHash=efa2be756d<br>
	::and a log entry would be needed at ]. If there isn't answer here, I'll check this elsewhere before asking an admin to screw up the whitelist. Regex. Too bad we don't have an adequate explanation of how to use it. I've looked. --] (]) 15:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
	:::<small>Regexps can't be learned in just a few hours, see e.g. . Therefore guys like Dirk and me exist. I corrected your proposed regexps. Whitelisting itself does not cost much time. Discussions and verifications cost time. -- ] (]) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
	::::Thanks, Seth. --] (]) 01:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)</small>
	::*Per the above findings, I'd agree that the copyright status of Lyrikline is OK. At the risk of some repetition, here is what I found:
	:::*The Goethe Institute is an arm of the German government. As they say on their web site, ''The Goethe-Institut is the Federal Republic of Germany’s cultural institution operational worldwide.'' (found on http://www.goethe.de/uun/enindex.htm)
	:::*This very arm of the government has an article on their website, '' Lyrikline Gives Contemporary Poetry a Multilingual Internet Platform'', in which they describe in positive terms what Lyrikline is up to. (http://www.goethe.de/kue/lit/thm/sli/en155415.htm)
	:::*On Lyrikline's web site, they assert: ''lyrikline.org is an internationally operating network committed to protecting the rights of copyright holders, and does the utmost to insure that rights are secured for all content on the website – poems, translations, audio recordings, and photographs.'' (www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=63&L=1)
	::*Given that the copyright situation looks OK, I wonder what the spam situation is. It would be OK to whitelist all of lyrikline.org, in my opinion, if it doesn't open the spam floodgates again. ] (]) 02:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
	:::I've been working on a history of the lyrikline blacklisting. As near as I can tell, the editor who was allegedly linkspamming stopped all addition of links prior to the blacklisting. He was actually removing links on the day of the blacklisting. See the report at ]. Beetstra has been helping some with this report. He has argued for the continued blacklisting of lyrikline.org at meta, because the user had added links to allegedly inappropriate language 'pedias. However, to me, this is somewhat doubtful. The original blacklisting was requested by en.wikipedia ] apparently based on RC patrol here, with a followup block by ] and the deletion of the article on ]. It appears that Hu12 assumed that the user name ] showed COI with Lyrikline.org. That was the block reason. It doesn't. Lyriker means "poet," and it isn't surprising that someone interested in poetry, as contribution history of the user's IP on de.wikipedia shows, would be interested in linking to lyrikline.org, which is an ''excellent'' resource. None of the links added here, as far as I've seen, were inappropriate, and reading the record of what happened to ] practically breaks my heart. Read his appeal to Hu12, quoted on the history page of mine. Lyrikline has been, since about May of last year, whitelisted in toto on de.wikipedia, and they have seen, according to ], who is admin there as well as here, no linkspamming. See also the list of poets at ], it's over 600 names. Many of these poets have articles here already and could use a link; my plan has been to gradually request whitelisting for one or a few at a time, as reasonable candidates are identified, until or unless the site is whitelisted totally, in which case I'd attempt to find consensus for massive addition. While it's possible there are articles on poets where lyrikline linking would not be appropriate, ''I haven't seen one of these yet.'' Further, I'd consider lyrikline.org a ] for biographical and other information about hosted poets, hence it is possible that we may get as many as a few hundred new articles out of this. But don't fear, I'm not going to fire up a bot and start cranking out the links, unless there is clear consensus. Really, today, I'm looking for ], where I've asked just about everywhere I could think of without finding any objections except the spurious copyright issue. --] (]) 04:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
	:::*Now that I've looked at the original spam report, I would not support whitelisting lyrikline.org for all of the English Misplaced Pages. I could see allowing it just for ]. I'd need to see a detailed plan before extending it any farther than that. I believe that the block of ] was justified. ] (]) 05:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
	::::Grounds for the block, Ed? Detailed plan? The plan is to whitelist links, one or a few at a time; the plan is to suggest doing what de.wikipedia did. Watch for abuse and deal with it. The plan is to follow blacklisting guidelines and ] and not to allow the ] against spam to take over the project. --] (]) 12:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

			==petitions.parliament.nz==
	:However, we are talking about an external link here. If it was a reference, then there would be a 'hurry' for the reference (as it might leave verifyable material in the document unsourced!). As an external link it does/might ''add'' to the page (though there may be other sites/links as well which do the same), but it is not like the wikipedia page is significantly less worth without an external link .. and based on the latter I would even decline this specific whitelisting .... and I believe that there is absolutely no proof that 'spamming will stop after whitelisting' (though maybe XLinkBot can take care of that here on en). --] <sup>] ]</sup> 09:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
			* {{LinkSummary\|petitions.parliament.nz}}
	:Dirk, "spamming" stopped ''before'' blacklisting. If this particular link is whitelisted, what, is someone going to add a link to ]? Come to think of it.... seriously, I've written that this is a poster child for problem blacklisting. I think there is no justification for ''global'' blacklisting, but it is arguable, so far. Nevertheless if this ''specific link'' isn't to be whitelisted, the whole process I've been following for trying to gather consensus, including respecting fully and carefully the needs of blacklist volunteers, gets escalated under ]. I said I'd wait for an answer here. The wait expires today. I really have no idea if it is better, overall, if it is accepted or denied. --] (]) 12:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
			* {{WLRequestLink\|petitions.parliament.nz/73f7fa6f-3b63-499a-7cdd-08dcb057b576 }}
			This is the website of the ] where they list petitions that have been received, and it tracks petitions' path through the parliamentary process. I see that every URL that starts with "petition" has been blacklisted to avoid Misplaced Pages being used as driving traffic to a petition site. This is of course different; it only gets a listing once a petition has been delivered (i.e. after the petition itself has closed). I was trying to add (https://) petitions.parliament.nz/73f7fa6f-3b63-499a-7cdd-08dcb057b576 to a ] (I'm writing this in user space as it needs an external review before it can get published as I have a COI). ''']]''' 21:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
			: It seems like from reading home page of the site that petitions that are still open do get posted to the site. Hence I'm going to whitelist only the one specific link you asked for, not the whole site. ] ] 21:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::Thanks for looking into it and sorry that I didn't detect that fact. ''']]''' 21:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

			:{{rto\|Schwede66}} {{Added}} to ]. --] ] 21:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	===www. missoulian. com/articles/2007/10/08/news/mtregional/znews06.txt/ and www. missoula. com/news/node/939/===

			== <nowiki>valuepenguin.com/health-insurance-claim-denials-and-appeals</nowiki> ==
	These are two simple articles with no spam involved that are the 2 only sources in ]. ] (]) 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
			* {{LinkSummary\|valuepenguin.com}}
			* {{WLRequestLink\|valuepenguin.com/health-insurance-claim-denials-and-appeals}}

			The data has been referenced in the article ] and the graph ]. While the data is somewhat misleading due to only representing ] (ACA) ] plans, it is likely the most easily accessible source for claim denials for private companies. Both the data and the chart is already on the UHG page without a citation. '''] (])''' 07:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
	Somebody has added a third source from another site, but still these links are essential for the article. ] (]) 14:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
	* Missoulian.com is not on the blacklist. Missoula.com is blacklisted at meta. I have restored the link to missoulian.com, is that enough? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

			:{{rto\|Johnkinslow}} {{Declined}}. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=UnitedHealth_Group&diff=prev&oldid=1265107902 --] ] 21:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
	I suppose so. What should be done with the remaining link? In general what should be done with a blacklisted reference that will not be whitelisted? Should it be left as a remark in the source code, or deleted? ] (]) 10:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

			==dawidkruiper.xyz==
	==Approved Requests==
			* {{LinkSummary\|dawidkruiper.xyz}}
	=== TinyURL.com (2) ===
			* {{WLRequestLink\|dawidkruiper.xyz/dawid-kruiper-speaker-and-mayor-elected-recently}}
	There are serveral reference links and URL alias examples in the article for ]. The article currently uses plain text to display the links, though usability-wise, it would be better if the links were clickable. The links redirect to TinyURLs' website, Misplaced Pages, and to whitehouse.gov. The following is a list of links that are currently being used in the article.
			* {{WLRequestLink\|dawidkruiper.xyz/know-your-mayor}}
	* <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/#example</nowiki>
	* <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/preview.php</nowiki>
	* <nowiki>http://preview.tinyurl.com/dick</nowiki>
	* <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/2unsh</nowiki>
	* <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/wp-tinyurl</nowiki>
	--] (]) 17:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
	:Just use the target URL's directly.--] (]) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
	::You misunderstood. This is an article about TinyURL, it uses the shortcuts as examples to illustrate how the service works. Also, some of the links ''are'' direct URLs, as I explained above. --] (]) 20:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
	:::I see. It is not Misplaced Pages's purpose to include a ]. Also;
	:::*preview.tinyurl.com/dick →"''This TinyURL was created by a user of our service back when the creation of the IDs for the TinyURL were sequential and predictable. This TinyURL in no way represents the beliefs of the people who bring you the TinyURL service and we apologize if this has brought offense to anyone''"
	:::*tinyurl.com/2unsh →redirects to main page of Misplaced Pages
	:::*tinyurl.com/wp-tinyurl→ redirects to ]
	:::The other "Examples" need not be hyperlinked to illustrate how the service works. see ]. If you are interested in a how-to style manual using examples, you may want to look at ] or our sister project ].--] (]) 21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

			Hi, this site (though admittedly a bit crap) is the official website of the ]. I am hoping to use these particular links to cite a couple biographical details in an article about ], the former mayor of the municipality, but I don't see any particular reason why the site shouldn't be unblocked generally. Thanks! ] (]) 11:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	::::Hu12, I'm confused by your responses. You don't even seem to have read my messages or the article. You've seem to have repeated what I, and the article, already said. And the policies you linked me to are irrelevant. ] and ] have nothing to do with this. The article doesn't contain a how-to guide, and these links are relevant to the article, they are in no way a "mere collection of external links". The two links you left out of your list are not "Examples", as you put it. They both are links to TinyURLs website, and are needed for reference. Also, Why did you make a list of links again and noted where each one redirects? I had already noted what they do. --] (]) 22:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
	::::: We don't need a functional "reference" to show how it works, the same way we don't need to host a Flash animation in ]. <b>] ]</b> 00:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
	::::::Alright. Why is it that I need to justify a simple edit to linkify a web address? This is a ''free'' encylopedia. I can understand the need to block certain URLs that are usually problematic, but I'm merely asking to whitelist the homepage and about pages of a website for use of ]. I have made it clear that all the links are ment for educational purposes, and are relevant.
	::::::And for the record, Misplaced Pages probably doesn't illustrate a Flash animation on Flashs' article because of technical limitations. ], For example, has '''three''' image animations; and ] displays an example link to Wikipedias' main page. --] (]) 01:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

			:{{rto\|Jlalbion}} {{Added}} to ]. --] ] 16:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
	:::::::My 2 cents: this seems like a reasonable request from a trustworthy editor. I'm inclined to grant it -- is there something i'm missing? --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::I took a look at the links requested ... here's my comments ...
	::::::::* <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/#example</nowiki> = a how-to guide ... not really appropriate for WP. The link to the tinyURL home page should be sufficient (and is already in the article) - users who want to know how-to can follow the links from there.
	::::::::* <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/preview.php</nowiki> = a link to turn the preview feature on/off ... I would lump this in with the how-to pages - but in this case, I can see this one being potentially useful in the article.
	::::::::* <nowiki>http://preview.tinyurl.com/dick</nowiki> = an example of a tinyURL link; but this can be better demonstrated with the next two requests.
	::::::::* <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/2unsh</nowiki> = a redirect to the Misplaced Pages mainpage. A pretty good example link, I see no reason not to allow it.
	::::::::* <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/wp-tinyurl</nowiki> = a redirect to the tinyURL article on Misplaced Pages. A good example, but someone on the tinyURL article who clicks it would be taken right back to the same article ... some users may not realize that the linking took place. I think the example to the mainpage link is more illustrative.
	::::::::Just my 2 cents on the links. --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::Thank you for your comments. Perhaphs I should have been more specific about what each of them are for.
	:::::::::* <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/#example</nowiki> - This link was a technical error, I ment to reference <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/#toolbar</nowiki> for the bit about the websites' ]. However, I can agree that the link to the homepage is sufficient.
	:::::::::* <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/preview.php</nowiki> - Exactly what Barek said above.
	:::::::::* <nowiki>http://preview.tinyurl.com/dick</nowiki> - This is more than just an example, it is used to cite one of the two only links on TinyURL that contain a disclaimer about the content it's redirecting to.
	:::::::::The other two are example links that redirect to Misplaced Pages, and again, only one of them should suffice. I suggest it will be <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/2unsh</nowiki> to avoid the confusion Barek mentioned. --] (]) 14:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::Given the info above, I would support Nezek in having these whitelisted: <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/preview.php</nowiki> , <nowiki>http://preview.tinyurl.com/dick</nowiki> , and <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/2unsh</nowiki> . --- ] <small>(] • ])</small> - 18:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

			==swarajyamag.com==
	<-I don't see an issue with white listing tinyurl.com URL's that are clearly under the control of the site operators.. (eg: those used for examples and such in the site documentation). --]] 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
			* {{LinkSummary\|swarajyamag.com}}
			* {{WLRequestLink\|https://swarajyamag.com/news-brief/kosi-mahasetu-and-other-projects-how-regions-of-bihar-are-being-better-connected-within-themselves}}

			This is needed to cite references for articles relating to ]'s recent rail infrastructure projects. This site is known to be sympathetic to right-wing voices, but is a good source for factual infrastructure updates. ] (]) 13:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			: {{declined}} ] shows the concerns with the site go far beyond sympathy to right-wing voices. ] ] 03:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			:: Yeah, so wasn't asking the whole website to be unblocked, we just need that particular page to be whitelisted. If you want, I can help you with additional sources for anything written in that article. ] (]) 12:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*<nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/#example</nowiki><br>
			::: The question is why you need to link to a source on the spam blacklist - your assertion that it {{tq\|is a good source for factual infrastructure updates}} seems to be strongly disagreed with by the community, and I'm not seeing a good reason. ] ] 18:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	*<nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/preview.php</nowiki><br>
	*<nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/2unsh</nowiki><br>
	*<nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/wp-tinyurl</nowiki><br>
	*<nowiki>http://preview.tinyurl.com/dick</nowiki><br> {{done}}--] (]) 19:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
	:Thank you Hu12! note that we re-listed the links above and agreed that <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/#example</nowiki> isn't needed. If you're going to remove <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/#example</nowiki> from the list as a result, may I suggest you leave it as <code>\btinyurl\.com/#\b</code>? that way it will include all anchors and a similar request wont pop up again in the future. --] (]) 20:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
	::I think there might be something off with the filter, its letting me post tinyurls that made it go off before. This is probably because the "#" in <nowiki>http://tinyurl.com/#example</nowiki> is treated as a comment. --] (]) 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

			==filesusr.com==
	:::Hi!
			* {{LinkSummary\|filesusr.com}}
	:::Concerning , you could replace the "#" by "\043", e.g.,
			* {{WLRequestLink\|https://7fe5adbf-3e9d-486a-96b5-aa2a66e04606.filesusr.com/ugd/ffdde1_4523623ee761418a887440e4fbd5120d.pdf}}
	:::<code>\btinyurl\.com/\043example\b</code>
	:::or
	:::<code>\btinyurl\.com/\043</code> (there's no need for <code>\b</code> here)
	:::because everything after '#' (including '#') will be treated as a comment. -- ] (]) 10:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
	::::Thanks for catching those! Great explaination seth. Nezek, feel free to poke my talk page if you need an alternative link...--] (]) 18:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

			This is needed to cite the updated record of the decision for the 5600 West BRT, which has changed the project's approach completely. There isn't another link available to access the record of decision. ] (]) 22:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	===justjaredjr.buzznet.com for ]===
	justjaredjr.buzznet.com/2009/02/17/david-henrie-interview/
	This is a link to an interview that contains information to support religious beliefs in a bio article. The site is generally a gossip site but this interview is a primary source and is reliable. --] 04:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
	*Looks like a blog; can you clarify how this meets ]? ] (]) 16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
	**It is an interview with transcribed comments from the principal being interviewed. Extremely unlikely that the interviewee comments are not his actual words even though transcribed by a source that is not ]. Reputation for fact checking is not relevant here as no facts need checking. There is no indication that this site makes things up, just that they report unsubstantiated gossip. I understand that the source is a blog but in my judgment I consider the words spoken by the subject as transcribed on this particular site as meeting the requirements of a ]. --] 17:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
	***I'm sure we can find a more suitable source? --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 22:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
	****I would much like a better source as well, but this was an interview by this source. Anything else would be secondary and less reliable. The strongest backing for an assertion of religious beliefs is a direct quote from the subject. That is pretty much all the source would be used for. --] 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
	*<code>\bjustjaredjr\.buzznet\.com\/2009\/02\/17\/david-henrie-interview\/\b</code> would be the code for the whitelist, I think. The pictures on the page seems to be attributed to the original author. My only concern would be the "reliable" part, per Stifle. My general experience with sites as these, is that they're likely not reliable at all. Not to mention their <code>justjared.buzznet.com/terms-of-service/</code> (ToS), part 4. As it stands with the primary source part, I am not sure. If you have anything more you would like to say, now would be a good time. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 10:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
	**Not much to add beyond what I already stated. It is a judgment call as to whether or not they accurately transcribed the words of the subject. (standard disclaimers of their not being legally responsible for errors not withstanding). They do not have a reputation of making things up like some tabloid sources have so I believe they are a reliable communication medium in this specific instance. As to it being a primary source, it is information by the subject about himself. It is reliable in that we can use it to say the subject said this, not that it is factually correct. That is all the information will be used for. Generally primary sources are discouraged but assertion of beliefs basically require an assertion quote direct from the subject. --] 15:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
	***I'll take your word on this one. As such this request is closed as {{Done}}. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 15:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

			:{{rto\|DrRubbertoe}} {{Added}} to ]. But this is a primary source, and it's generally preferable to base Misplaced Pages articles' content on secondary sources. ] ] 03:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	Test: . If I just unbroke the regex, this should work now. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 16:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
	=== rythm.galatta.com/community/blog_entry.php?user=randorguy&blogentry_id=5544===

			== threemagroups.xyz==
	I am planning to write an article on the sensational Lakshmikanthan Murder Case and I am using this blog by eminent film historian ] as my source. But the site appears to be blacklisted and I am not able to add this link to the list of references. Could you please remove this URL from the blacklist so that I could add it. Thanks-<font color="maroon" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="aqua" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 19:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
			I wish to add {{LinkSummary\|threemagroups.xyz}} onto the whitelist as it is a helpful site for new Threema messenger users. I want to link to {{WLRequestLink\|threemagroups/index.html}} near the end of the Features section talking about groups. ] (]) 23:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
	: {{decline}} Whitelisting the specific link is more appropriate in this case. <b>] ]</b> 19:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
			: That bit is already sited to two primary sources. Is a third one really necessary? ] ] 00:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
	:: Yeah, of course, I did specify the exact page for whitelisting, didn't I. You see, this is the only comprehensive work on the subject. Some articles in '']'' newspaper, do make a passing mention of the case and the kind of impact it had on the careers of the accused but I feel that this beats all of them to it as it's more comprehensive and a single replacement for many others-<font color="maroon" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="aqua" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 02:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
			== Malformed YouTube request ==
	::: ] rather indicates that if there is only one source - and in this case it appears to to be not only a blog but also not properly independent of at least some of the subjects covered - then the subject is likely not suitable for inclusion. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
			Please permit me to add this specific YouTube video that explains a topic - citizens' assemblies - well. I feel that the other references are overly skewed towards an academic audience and not towards the general public, who are actually the main audience this Wiki entry needs to reach - people with no prior knowledge of the topic. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::: According to ],
			: We can't possibly help you if you don't specify what YouTube video you are referring to. Most likely you tried to use the URL shortener <code>youtu.be</code> which is (wrongly IMO) globally blacklisted. In that case just use the full URL instead. ] ] 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== Just Jared ==
	:::: {{quotation\|Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications}}
			* {{LinkSummary\|justjared.com}}
			* {{WLRequestLink\|justjared.com/2024/12/31/dick-clarks-new-years-rockin-eve-2025-on-abc-full-performers-lineup-revealed/}}

			I request this to cite a full list of performances at Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin Eve 2025. Other lists lack performers such as ].
	:::: Randor Guy is a recognized expert on the ]. His works have been the subject of many articles in the '']'' and I've used them as references for the article. I've not been able to find published works on the web in the few minutes that I spent searching on the net, but this does not mean that they do not exist. The facts mentioned in the blog correlate exactly with the statements made by Randor Guy while being interviewed during a programme on the case that was telecasted in ] about an year back.-<font color="maroon" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="aqua" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
			] (]) 14:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)davFaithid

	:::: See here,,,,,-<font color="maroon" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="aqua" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 06:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

	::::: {{Added}} --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 01:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
	:::::: I'm still getting a Spam filter notice when I add the URL. I guess it is the root URL rythm.galatta.com that is triggering the spam filter and needs to be whitelisted.-<font color="maroon" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="aqua" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 04:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::I'm so sorry about that.

	:::::::Can someone better at regex than I am take a look at the I made? Thanks, --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 05:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::: Yeah, it's working fine now. Thanks for fixing it :-)-<font color="maroon" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="aqua" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 05:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

	=== rythm.galatta.com ===

	I am planning to write an article on the sensational Lakshmikanthan Murder Case and I am using a blog at this site by eminent film historian ] as my source. But the site appears to be blacklisted and I am not able to add this link to the list of references. Could you please remove this URL from the blacklist so that I could add it.

	I've already specified the blog in an earlier request of mine here. But the admin who responded asked me to specify the specific page without the "blog id" query string-<font color="maroon" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="aqua" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 16:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

	* Blogs are not generally considered ]. Why should we make an exception in this case, please? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

	:: According to ],

	:: {{quotation\|Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications}}-<font color="maroon" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="aqua" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 06:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

	:: I also wish to inform that I've written a article on the subject. The article could be found ]. However, most of the article uses this blog as the primary reference and the information may very well be challenged as unsourced if I am not able to add this blog to the reference list-<font color="maroon" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="aqua" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 06:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

	:::{{Added}} -- I have added rythm.galatta.com/community/blog_entry.php?user=randorguy&blogentry_id=5544 per your similar request above. I did not see a need to whitelist the rest of rythm.galatta.com. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. --<font face="Futura">] <sup>(] • ])</sup> </font> 01:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

	:::: It doesn't work. It still triggers the spam filter-<font color="maroon" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="aqua" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 04:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

	:::: Yeah, it's working fine now. Thanks for fixing it :-)-<font color="maroon" size="4" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font><sub><font color="aqua" face="Monotype Corsiva">]</font></sub> 05:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

	==Declined Requests==
	===fisheaters.com===
	I was surprised to find this blocked, but suspect that someone must have abused this link in the past. If sufficient time has passed, it would be very helpful to be able to cite these pages again. Thanks for considering this request. --] (]) 13:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
	:This was blacklisted on the global blacklist. {{Defermetablack}}. --<small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 13:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
	:Or if there's a specific page you want to cite, and it's a reliable source, let us have the exact URL and we may be able to whitelist it. ] (]) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
	:: I am not the original poster but I'd like to link to the URL fisheaters.com/beingcatholic.html from the entry "Catholic Devotions" . That page of the website has explanations and instructions about Catholic devotions and is pretty comprehensive. ] (]) 02:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
	::: The site offers a distorted perspective - the ] view - so is not appropriate in an article on the general topic. Additionally, there is no indication that it meets our ] guidelines; the owner is pseudonymous, there is no evidence of editorial board or content review, and the site owner was responsible for making a very large number of links to it on Misplaced Pages. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
	:::: The traditional Catholic view isn't "distorted" (see, for example, John Paul II's "Ecclesia Dei" and Benedict XVI's "Summorum Pontificum"); it's a totally legitimate means of worship in the Roman Catholic Church. Priestly fraternities fully in communion with Rome, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (the FSSP) offer the Sacraments in accordance with the 1962 Missal, and Roman Catholics of all types practice the non-sacramental devotions described on that page. SSPX priests and Bishops also offer the Sacraments in the traditional way, but the site isn't an SSPX site. It's just traditionalist and any traditional Catholic would learn from it, as would non-traditionalist Catholics and scholars interested in the history of Catholic devotions. ] (]) 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
	::::: The traditional'''ist''' view is a fringe view, and the site represents everything from that POV so is by definition distorted. That makes it problematic as a source even without the past abuse problems. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 13:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
	:::::: It might be "fringe" to the world at large (as would any sort of Roman Catholicism or any sort of serious Christianity in general), but in the Catholic world, if Popes or Councils say traditionalism isn't fringe (see the documents referenced above), then it isn't, and in articles about Roman Catholicism, what is magisterial is what matters. There are priests, fully in communion with Rome (the FSSP or ICK as examples), who offer the traditional sacraments, use the traditional calendar, and encourage traditional devotions. That is what the Fisheaters site is for. ] (]) 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
	:{{Notdone}} Defered to meta--] (]) 18:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
	===losethegame.com for ]===
	<nowiki>http://losethegame.com</nowiki>

	Okay, I realize it shouldn't necessarily be unblocked from the whole encyclopedia due to asshat vandals, but it's completely relevant on a page about The Game itself. Can an exception be made or something? --] (]) 07:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

	:This would result in the whole domain being whitelisted. It is indeed an appropriate link for the article, but there are really significant problems with this site (it does encourage placing this link in inappropriate places, and of the edits that included this link on en.wikipedia most were like that). I would really like a suitable link like 'losethegame.com/about.htm' or something similar, provided that that page is a neutral description of the site, and it does not include the 'you lose' in any form (as then this link would do just the trick like the main domain. If such a page suitably exists, then that would be the solution. I hope this explains. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 10:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
	::Ok, hows about <nowiki>http://losethegame.com/faq.htm</nowiki>. It only includes "you lose" in the context of clarifying the rules as to what thinking about The Game entails. --] (]) 20:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
	::: {{declined}} This has been discussed extensively. It's not an official site, and it's owner is a serial self-promoter who's been blocked. It's blocked at meta for a good reason. <b>] ]</b> 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
	::::Additionaly ] is a ] page. hyperlinking would be innapropriate.--] (]) 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
	:::::Sorry, I obviously meant ] apologies for any confusion. --] (]) 06:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

	==Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance==
	=== another Newsweek url ===
	I'm editing the article ] because I found it in ] and it turnes out this is because a link to a Newsweek article that has been blocked. The link leads a to a fine and relevant article, and I'd like to ask you to unblock it. This is it: http:// www. moneyweek. com /investments/commodities/are-we-facing-peak-uranium.aspx

	:It's not Newsweek but ]. ] (]) 15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

	:: Yes, yes, you're right. ] (]) 17:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

	Dear administrators...? ] (]) 10:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

	* The text supported by the citation was a very brief sentence: "This caused some to speculate that peak uranium has arrived." It had two sources, one of which was the moneyweek one. I'm wondering whether this is a matter of ], but since there is another cite I would think that should be sufficient for now, given the limited content. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

	You are right. In the mean time another user, oblivious to the discussion here and on the talk page there, already deleted the link. Request withdrawn. ] (]) 22:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

	== Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block) ==
	{{messagebox
	\|text=This section is for proposing that a website be ''un''listed; please add new entries at the '''''bottom''''' of the '''section'''. Remember to provide the specific URL whitelisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favor of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked with an appropriate ] then ].
	}}
	<!--PLEASE ADD NEW ENTRIES AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SECTION -->
	<!-- PLEASE SIGN YOUR ENTRY WITH FOUR TILDES: ~~~~ : -->
	<!-- Tildes are the shifted character located to the left of the "1" in top row of keys -->

	== Troubleshooting and problems ==
	{{messagebox
	\|text=This section is for comments related to problems with the whitelist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being allowed). This is ''not'' the section to request that an entry be listed or unlisted (see above). Completed requests will be ]}}
	*Not sure if this is the right place, but I tried tagging an article with being a copyvio of http://entertainment-indianetzone-com/... using subst:copyvio, and got a rejection. This seems like a bug. --] (]) 07:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

	== Procedures ==
	To get a perfectly good link whitelisted is an ordeal. I actually have given up (for the second time). I feel myself like a criminal explaning that he did nothing wrong. Where should I discuss simplification of whitelisting rules or, alternatively, the unwillingness of admins to apply the rules, whichever may be the case? ] (]) 09:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

	== Discussion ==
	{{messagebox
	\|text=This section is for discussion about this talk page itself. Requests should not be added here.}}
	This is a very low-traffic page, perhaps we should open a process for it in the Misplaced Pages namespace. ] (]) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

			:{{rto\|DavFaithid}} {{Added}} to ]. --] ] 18:19, 8 January 2025 (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 (]) may be useful information. --<font face="Futura">] ] </font> 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:19, 8 January 2025

Archives (current)→

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Spam blacklists
Local blacklist (talk · archives · logs) Local whitelist (talk · archives · logs) CAPTCHA exemption whitelist (talk) Global blacklist (talk · archives · logs) XLinkBot Revertlist (talk · archives · logs)

Shortcuts

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 Misplaced Pages 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|1268219913#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

If you have a source that you would like to add to the spam-whitelist, but you are uncertain that it meets Misplaced Pages's guideline on reliability, please ask for opinions on the Reliable sources noticeboard, to confirm that it does meet that guideline, before submitting your whitelisting request here. In your request, link to the confirming discussion on that noticeboard.

Likewise, if you have an external link that you are uncertain meets Misplaced Pages's guideline on external links, please get confirmation on the External links noticeboard before submitting your whitelisting request here.

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 achieve consensus at one of the above noticeboards.

Add new entries at the bottom of this page. Completed requests will be marked with an appropriate Indicator then archived.

Instructions to requesters:

Explain why the site should be whitelisted.
Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.
Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.
- Please use the basic URL so that there is no link (www.google.ca, not http://www.google.ca).
- Please add a {{LinkSummary|example.org}} (replace example.org with the domain your specific url resides on, and remove the 'www.' part, and everything following the domain-name). This inserts a set of links that helps in finding relevant information and related discussion on the requested site.

If the above information is not provided, expect your request to be declined.

PLEASE ADD NEW ENTRIES TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST

PLEASE SIGN YOUR ENTRY WITH FOUR TILDES: ~~~~

snot.xyz

snot.xyz: 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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This page should be whitelisted because it's the official website of rapper Snot. Other artists have their websites displayed in their infobox with an .xyz domain, like rapper Ken Carson. It makes sense for the same for Snot. RodeoWrld (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@RodeoWrld:

Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

www.infowars.com/about

infowars.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: www.infowars.com/about

The link in the Official website template at the bottom of the InfoWars article contains a link to infowars/contributors, which currently does not exist. I'd appreciate it if someone replaces that link with /about, which does exist. While the /about page isn't exactly the most neutral thing out there, it's definitely more neutral than most of the content on that website and isn't unnaceptably problematic in my view. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Declined for now. I'd say let's hold off for a few months. The site is in flux since theonion.com acquired it, and it is going to be shut down and resurrected in 2025. Let's see what they do with it first. In the meantime, we could probably whitelist an archived page, like the contributors page that no longer exists. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The existing whitelisting of the /contributors already covers archived versions: https://web.archive.org/web/20200831191205/https://www.infowars.com/contributors/ * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've replaced the dead link with that archive link. Side note: a judge has paused the purchase and it is currently under review, so Alex Jones is still the website's operator at the moment. We'll see what happens in the future. Nythar (💬-🍀) 06:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

www.change.org/p/a-call-for-justin-welby-to-resign

change.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: www.change.org/p/a-call-for-justin-welby-to-resign

Hi, I would like to request the petition on change.org for the resignation of Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, to be whitelisted. I'd like to use the link on Makin Review which I have just created, and add it to Archbishop of Canterbury and Justin Welby. The creation of a petition calling for an archbishop's resignation was extremely notable, especially as (1) it was started by three clergymen in his province, (2) it received widespread coverage in many reputable media outlets, and (3) he did resign just a few days later. Being able to reference it directly will (in my view) improve Misplaced Pages. I am aware that change.org is listed under common requests to be denied, but in this instance, I believe it is an exceptional situation. This petition was closely associated with a significant event that was without precedent and will be studied for many years to come. The page on change.org includes the creators' reasons why they felt Welby should resign and so it is highly relevant to understanding this historic event. Hence I believe it should be allowed. If the link is whitelisted, I will also add some secondary sources about the petition to confirm its notability. SmilingFace (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@SmilingFace:

Declined Misplaced Pages is not an advocacy venue, as linking to an active petition would inevitably be (I'm not claiming that's what you're trying to do, I'm claiming it's what the effect would be). If you have secondary sources describing the petition's significance, you can just link to those instead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, This is not about advocacy. Whilst the petition is technically still active, it is no longer relevant as Welby has said he will resign. This news is so notable that it is still on the front page of Misplaced Pages, despite it being 5 days old now! I have added some secondary sources referencing the petition, but none contain the text of what the petition's creators actually wrote, which is historically significant in a digital age. So being able to link it will improve our articles about this important event. It's a bit like linking to one of Donald Trump's tweets, which are similarly of historic significance and allowed. Please can you reconsider. SmilingFace (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Again,

Declined. If none of the sources referencing the petition found the actual text in it important enough to quote, why should Misplaced Pages make the opposite editorial judgment? We shouldn't need to link to Trump's tweets either, especially when they are widely quoted. The fact that we do link to them is a reason to remove them, not a reason to compound the problem with similar links to petition. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

www.thepointsguy.com/news/eva-air-new-business-suites-777-cabin-refresh/

thepointsguy.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• Link requested to be whitelisted: https://thepointsguy.com/news/eva-air-new-business-suites-777-cabin-refresh/

Hi I was about to update this article about the refurbishment of existing four B787-9 with premium Economy seats. I searched and this is the only reference I could find with the latest info. I request the above link to be whitewashed. Thanks, Now wiki (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Now wiki:

Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery: Thanks! Now wiki (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

bigredbook.info

bigredbook.info: 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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: bigredbook.info/freddie_mills.html
Link requested to be whitelisted: bigredbook.info/images/series6/freddiemills1.jpg

I'm adding citations and references to the article on Derrick Collier, and there is a statement about Collier's relationship with Freddie Mills and their appearance on "This is Your Life".

The pages I'm after are a description of the episode, and a picture, which clearly shows Collier with Mills.

B800h (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@B800h:

Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra 10:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

http://web.archive.org/web/20181122011535/http://hurryupharry.org/2008/08/27/going-nowhere/

hurryupharry.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: http://web.archive.org/web/20181122011535/http://hurryupharry.org/2008/08/27/going-nowhere/

The link to hurryupharry org is dead on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Harry%27s_Place&action=edit&section=4 , however because it is backlisted, I cannot even use the waybackmachine link to update it.Had to put a space between hurryup and harry as I can't even make this request if I leave them in!

Furbian (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC) furbian Furbian (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Added * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

www.kickstarter.com/projects/massivemonsters/the-adventure-pals-a-story-of-love-giraffes-and-ho

kickstarter.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: www.kickstarter.com/projects/massivemonsters/the-adventure-pals-a-story-of-love-giraffes-and-ho

For use as a primary source on the article The Adventure Pals due to a lack of readily available better sources. Also for use as a source in a non-free image description for uploading the game's cover. ToThAc (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToThAc:

Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

cro.media/shopify-history/

cro.media: 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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Link requested to be whitelisted: cro.media/shopify-history/

This page should be whitelisted as it is the only decent source for showing Shopify History Infographics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarhov (talk • contribs) 10:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Declined Your edits here speak for themselves. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

filesusr.com

filesusr.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: filesusr.com

For use as a primary source in Socialist Party USA (through a web.archive.org permalink), which hosted several issues of its magazine on filesusr.com. See . SocDoneLeft (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

We definitely aren't going to whitelist the whole site. That's way too broad. We might whitelist specific deeplinked URLs if they are warranted, but the use case of Socialist_Party_USA#External links isn't convincing right now - that section as is is veering toward WP:NOTLINKFARM territory. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pppery: Could you whitelist https://web.archive.org/web/20211018203107/https://70cf60ca-3001-416d-af98-7ea84644f715. filesusr.com/ugd/b7a8af_33481c194d7d4e5e9bc278a434cdb66b.pdf and https://web.archive.org/web/20241220052515/https://70cf60ca-3001-416d-af98-7ea84644f715. filesusr.com/ugd/b7a8af_c27c23896eef4274a48e401bf67f8f21.pdf then? SocDoneLeft (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the use case - Socialist_Party_USA#External links is already too much of a collection of links for my taste. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

petitions.parliament.nz

petitions.parliament.nz: 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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: petitions.parliament.nz/73f7fa6f-3b63-499a-7cdd-08dcb057b576

This is the website of the New Zealand Parliament where they list petitions that have been received, and it tracks petitions' path through the parliamentary process. I see that every URL that starts with "petition" has been blacklisted to avoid Misplaced Pages being used as driving traffic to a petition site. This is of course different; it only gets a listing once a petition has been delivered (i.e. after the petition itself has closed). I was trying to add (https://) petitions.parliament.nz/73f7fa6f-3b63-499a-7cdd-08dcb057b576 to a draft article in my sandbox (I'm writing this in user space as it needs an external review before it can get published as I have a COI). Schwede 66 21:58, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

It seems like from reading home page of the site that petitions that are still open do get posted to the site. Hence I'm going to whitelist only the one specific link you asked for, not the whole site. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it and sorry that I didn't detect that fact. Schwede 66 21:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66:

Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

valuepenguin.com/health-insurance-claim-denials-and-appeals

valuepenguin.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: valuepenguin.com/health-insurance-claim-denials-and-appeals

The data has been referenced in the article UnitedHealth Group and the graph File:Claim_denial_rates_by_insurance_company.webp. While the data is somewhat misleading due to only representing Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace plans, it is likely the most easily accessible source for claim denials for private companies. Both the data and the chart is already on the UHG page without a citation. User:Johnkinslow (talk) 07:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Johnkinslow:

Declined. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=UnitedHealth_Group&diff=prev&oldid=1265107902 --* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

dawidkruiper.xyz

dawidkruiper.xyz: 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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: dawidkruiper.xyz/dawid-kruiper-speaker-and-mayor-elected-recently
Link requested to be whitelisted: dawidkruiper.xyz/know-your-mayor

Hi, this site (though admittedly a bit crap) is the official website of the Dawid Kruiper Local Municipality. I am hoping to use these particular links to cite a couple biographical details in an article about Michael Segede, the former mayor of the municipality, but I don't see any particular reason why the site shouldn't be unblocked generally. Thanks! Jlalbion (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jlalbion:

Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

swarajyamag.com

swarajyamag.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: https://swarajyamag.com/news-brief/kosi-mahasetu-and-other-projects-how-regions-of-bihar-are-being-better-connected-within-themselves

This is needed to cite references for articles relating to Bihar's recent rail infrastructure projects. This site is known to be sympathetic to right-wing voices, but is a good source for factual infrastructure updates. extra999 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Declined Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Swarajya shows the concerns with the site go far beyond sympathy to right-wing voices. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, so wasn't asking the whole website to be unblocked, we just need that particular page to be whitelisted. If you want, I can help you with additional sources for anything written in that article. extra999 (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The question is why you need to link to a source on the spam blacklist - your assertion that it is a good source for factual infrastructure updates seems to be strongly disagreed with by the community, and I'm not seeing a good reason. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

filesusr.com

filesusr.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: https://7fe5adbf-3e9d-486a-96b5-aa2a66e04606.filesusr.com/ugd/ffdde1_4523623ee761418a887440e4fbd5120d.pdf

This is needed to cite the updated record of the decision for the 5600 West BRT, which has changed the project's approach completely. There isn't another link available to access the record of decision. DrRubbertoe (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@DrRubbertoe:

Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. But this is a primary source, and it's generally preferable to base Misplaced Pages articles' content on secondary sources. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

threemagroups.xyz

I wish to add threemagroups.xyz: 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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com onto the whitelist as it is a helpful site for new Threema messenger users. I want to link to Link requested to be whitelisted: threemagroups/index.html near the end of the Features section talking about groups. Tsugu SK (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

That bit is already sited to two primary sources. Is a third one really necessary? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Malformed YouTube request

Please permit me to add this specific YouTube video that explains a topic - citizens' assemblies - well. I feel that the other references are overly skewed towards an academic audience and not towards the general public, who are actually the main audience this Wiki entry needs to reach - people with no prior knowledge of the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalk giant (talk • contribs) 06:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

We can't possibly help you if you don't specify what YouTube video you are referring to. Most likely you tried to use the URL shortener youtu.be which is (wrongly IMO) globally blacklisted. In that case just use the full URL instead. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Just Jared

justjared.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 - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: justjared.com/2024/12/31/dick-clarks-new-years-rockin-eve-2025-on-abc-full-performers-lineup-revealed/

I request this to cite a full list of performances at Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin Eve 2025. Other lists lack performers such as Oliver Anthony. DavFaithid (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)davFaithid

@DavFaithid:

Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)