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

message: This is the link to the actual online petition referred to in the article about Apichatpong Weerasethakul, regarding the censorship of his film, Syndromes and a Century. The link was being used as a reference. The link could also be used as a reference in developing the article about the film. — WiseKwai 06:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems relevant. --slakr\ talk / 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: www.petitiononline.com/nocut/petition.html

message: There is nothing wrong with this link, it is a valid company
www.tanners-wines.co.uk  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter (talk • contribs) 22:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been spammed before (I guess this really old company has adapted to modern times). I'd prefer not to whitelist the whole domain, opening the floodgates again -- is there a specific page you want to use? --A. B. (talk)  21:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The home page is what i use for every company on the list, is that possible? Gunter (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The home page is the one most likely to be spammed. What about www.tanners-wines.co.uk/TannersSite/cm/A_Little_History.htm?  Also, for what it's worth, I think they're stretching things to say they've been around since 1842 -- it looks like they bought a company founded then. --A. B. (talk)  12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, lets use that link then, thanks Gunter (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  --A. B. (talk)  18:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: www.tanners-wines.co.uk 

message: I request that digitpress.com be whitelisted so an article in it—an interview—can be used as a reference.  It was used as a reference before the site was blacklisted.  I understand the site was blacklisted because a user using several sockpuppets was spamming numerous articles on the 'pedia.  I don't know if that's a concern any longer, but if possible, just the link to the interview could be whitelisted.  The URL is http://www.digitpress.com/library/interviews/interview_bob_whitehead.html and is needed in the Bob Whitehead article.  Numerous statements in the article relied on the interview as a reference.  Thanks. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Id say whitelist it. βcommand 16:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, --Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Great, thank you! — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Digitpress.com

message: This is not spam, I added it myself, but not for advertising or anything of the sort. My article is about "Golden Sun 3" (a game that is not in production yet...but if very anticipated), This link leads to a petition to create such a game (don't get me wrong, the point of my article is NOT for the petition. The article talks about any info related to the release of the game) and I think anyone who reads this article about the game would love to have a chance to contribute to its creation. So please let this link stay so that people could contribute to the release of this game. Again this is not the main purpose of the article.
Nimrod EX
: Please take a look at the specific requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. I don't think this link meets either guideline. --A. B. (talk)  23:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.petitiononline.com/gs32005/petition.html 

message: I would like to link this page from WP:USRD#Nationwide, since it has a large number of useful links to sites that have topos scanned, and it's easier to link here than to copy all the links. --NE2 18:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there alternatives & is it a reliable source, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: www.gelib.com/historic-topographic-maps

message: You Spin Me Round (Like a Record) lacks a citation for a reference on the song being used on Internet memes. --Rotring (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked on Meta per this.  I'd not be happy whitelisting it without far more rationale I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 14:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: wowomg.com

message: Can this please be whitelisted, I have no idea why it is blocked, I need to use it as an external link.--The Dominator (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't cross post MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#szlemberk.xf.cz.2F--Hu12 (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I need to use the link here: Lemberk Castle as I have taken much of the info from the website only to be told that it's blacklisted and I can't cite it.--The Dominator (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there alternatives & is it a reliable source, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: szlemberk.xf.cz

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

message: I would like to add this article to Peer review as a citation to support the second sentence in this edit. The article appears to be a reliable source and contains a bibliography. The only other copy I can find is at www.answers.com/topic/university-press which is a poorer page to link to. Nurg (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are riddled with adds. I do request, that you add a note for users to scroll down or something like that because education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2522/University-Presses.html renders the full screen with a huge adsense advert. --Hu12 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatly at the bottom of the page states "Content on this website is from high-quality, commercially published books available in print form" there is no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright). this needs to be  --Hu12 (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't notice that. I have found the original source so all is well. Thanks for your help, Hu12. Nurg (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear you found the proper source. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2522/University-Presses.html 

message: Asking for a whitelist of 5min.com to serve as a reference on the Britannica article. The encyclopedia launched a video version in conjunction with 5min, and I'd like to add a reference link to http://www.5min.com/Britannica. As far as I can understand the site was blacklisted for excessive external linking a while back. --FeldBum (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's some history. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#5min.com_Linkspam--Hu12 (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I looked through that and the messages left on the talk pages of 5min's accounts/socks. It's not hard to see what earned them the blacklist. Can anything be done now? The site does have some decent content for references and citations, at least in the case of Britannica. Is there a temporary or partial whitelisting that can allow my edit without re-opening Wikipedia up to the same type of spam, or perhaps a limited whitelist with stricter criteria for adding external links? --FeldBum (talk) 07:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there alternatives? & is it a reliable source?  I've looked into this, asside from a few 5min.com self published pieces and a mention on their blog.5min.com, I find no mention of this on britannica.com or in the news. A news Item by a reputable agency would be the most reliable source to cite such a claim. The link above contains a list of videos and no context, I'm affraid more rationale is needed. --Hu12 (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about this link instead as a source? http://www.prweb.com//releases/2007/12/prweb574802.htm. I definitely think 5min is a reliable source in general, based on their video content, not the blog or press release. Some of the DIY videos, especially original ones, would work well as reference articles --FeldBum (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Press release. I've removed the sentence, so untill a Verifiable "Reliable Source" can be found, i'm going to have to mark this as --Hu12 (talk) 18:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: www.5min.com

message: ===Baxter & Cloggy's Niva sites===
These are essential reference pages for Niva owners http://www12 . asphost4free . com/baxdesign/NivaMainPage . htm Not sure why it's blacklisted. Tartanperil (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the asphost4free bit that is blacklisted on Meta as a result of some spam dumps in January.  I guess one of the main questions is whether the site is a reliable source?  Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Withdrawn by requester, and no longer listed on the BL. Closing as  --Hu12 (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: These are essential reference pages for Niva owners http://www12 . asphost4free . com/baxdesign/NivaMainPage . htm Not sure why it's blacklisted. Tartanperil (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the asphost4free bit that is blacklisted on Meta as a result of some spam dumps in January.  I guess one of the main questions is whether the site is a reliable source?  Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I request that this site be whitelisted to be used in the External links section of David Howe (claimant to King of Mann). Currently the only two external links on that page are owned or maintained by the subject himself and thus support his claim to be king of the Isle of Man. Unrealroyal.com, by contrast, analyzes Howe's claimed ancestry and legal claims and argues that his claim to be king is invalid. Therefore, unrealroyal.com should be allowed as a link to maintain neutral point of view. It is not known to me why this site would have been blacklisted as spam; it does not contain advertising. Furthermore, a named person (Michael Andrews-Reading) takes responsibility for the content of that page. By the way, this is the first time I have ever come across the spam blacklist despite having been an editor for over 2½ years and an administrator for three months, so if anyone can direct me to more information about it, I'd appreciate it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Withdrawn by requester, and no longer listed on the BL. Closing as  --Hu12 (talk) 11:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: www.unrealroyal.com

message: For some reason the code above triggers the blacklist and I can't figure out why. I was trying to use this in a  tag to get something to use a scroll bar and the page blew up on me. Note that the filter is triggered with an actual semicolon, not with the Unicode format I had to use here. Using these parameters in the reverse order or separated by other code does not appear to throw up red flags. Neither the words "overflow" or "height" appear in either blacklist, and while "auto" appears several times, it's always amidst other characters, never standing alone. I think this might be a coding problem with the software, but wanted to let you guys know. Thanks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocking of this string occurs in the server configurations, adding it to the whitelist won't help. This was done to prevent spammers from creating large (sometimes transparent) overlay characters, which would cover the entire page & go to their site when clicked. --Versageek 05:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: well, if reversing the order or using entities, makes the effect not be blocked, then it certainly doesn't prevent spammers from doing that -- it just maybe stops some of the existing spammers. —Isaac Dupree(talk) 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  overflow: auto&#x3B; height: 

message: It's now impossible to edit Talk:Involuntary_celibacy at all because it's giving me a spam-filter message... it would be great if you could do something about it, because I didn't see any links that looked like spam to me when I read that talk page... even though I'm not modifying anything, just adding my own text that has no links in it. —Isaac Dupree(talk) 02:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I unlinked the invisionfree.com URL so the page can be edited. It's still there in text form, so people can copy/paste it into browsers, but it's no longer clickable. --Versageek 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! that's good enough —Isaac Dupree(talk) 16:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: s15.invisionfree.com