Archives (current)→

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

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

Also in your request, please include the following:

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

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

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

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

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: ((/request|1167171666#section_name))

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

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

Request completed:
 Done ((Done))
 Stale ((StaleIP))
 Request withdrawn ((withdrawn))
Request declined:
no Declined ((Declined))
 Not done ((Notdone))
 Additional information needed ((MoreInfo))
information Note: ((TakeNote))

Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards[edit]

If you have a source that you would like to add to the spam-whitelist, but you are uncertain that it meets Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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.

Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock)[edit]

Link requested to be whitelisted: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wikigs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

I would like this to be whitelisted for use in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith. It is the page Lynn Goldsmith set up to raise money to pay her legal bills in the copyright-infringement case she won at the Supreme Court last month, and includes her commentary and reactions to it, which I would like to be able to cite in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Never mind ... I've been able to find the same information from an RS. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Request withdrawn. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The URL was used as a source at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright for years, but the URL has been removed due to the domain later being put on the WP blacklist. Veverve (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Veverve: The archive link is still there and functional. I confess I am not seeing a problem with the present state of that FAQ. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist: the archived URL cannot be displayed as an "Archived on..." unless a real URL is added. The Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright page currently uses the archived URL instead of the the parameter of the normal URL due to the URL being blacklisted. Putting an archive link in an URL parameter is not normal. Veverve (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For menarche, spermarche, and masturbation. Why? Because it is based upon the Gale Encyclopedia. The Gale Encyclopedia is more reliable than Britannica. Why? Because it has more recent content, and caters to professionals. While the Gale Encyclopedia itself can be WP:CITEd, it is nice to have the whole article available for reading. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Forget about it. I have found and , which render my request moot. But I'd still wish to have Masturbation whitelisted. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Request withdrawn. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Alan  (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update. The new WST site ( is now up and running but it is not as useful as the old site, since it does not list high breaks and centuries. So we are still relying on CueTracker.  Alan  (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further Update. The new WST site ( is, apparently, being worked upon but (IMO) it is not fit for purpose. The current ongoing tournament, the 2023 Championship League (ranking), has only a week to go until its completion. CueTracker has NO advertising and, as far as I am aware, is spam free. Some of its historical data is dubious, but, in general, for recent tournaments its data is reliable. A decision on this request is needed urgently.  Alan  (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further Update. Clearly nobody is interested in looking at this. Other requests submitted after this one have been dealt with. The tournament will be completed tomorrow so it's too late to do anything about it now, but there are many more tournaments coming up through the season. The situation regarding the WST live-scores website is unchanged and CueTracker remains the only resource available. In my opinion it should not be blacklisted.  Alan  (talk) 09:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are proposing to remove from the blacklist, then  Defer to Local blacklist and make your case there. There may be a case for whitelisting the path (and consequently sub-pages would also be whitelisted) but you aren't proposing that. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too Late. The tournament ends today. Thanks for at least showing some interest at last.  Alan  (talk) 06:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the reasons I have stated above. Bonus: little to no advertising. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: What, exactly, is in that source that cannot be found in numerous other reliable sources about masturbation? Or are you withdrawing the request because it's struck out in your comment above?
That said, it may be worth discussing whether to whitelist ~Anachronist (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist: The Gale Encyclopedia is already WP:CITEd at masturbation. I thought it is convenient for the reader to have the whole article available. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am in the process of updating Contact sports and have identified as an authoritative sporting federation, however their rules page that provides links to their rules documentation does so via The three documents above would all be relevant to the [[Contact sports] article as useful summaries of the different forms of contact allowed within a given martial art, and specifics around scoring, rule changes and so on. For the moment I have linked to the rules page itself, but it may be preferred to refer to the specific page of a document, or iteration / version. Koncorde (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like the link to be whitelisted to use on 2024 United States Senate election in Indiana for an endorsement of Jim Banks. Richard Grenell endorsed Jim Banks for US Senate and other than Banks' campaign website this is the only source that I have found that has the information. Thanks! Grahaml35 (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no Declined. A primary source and an unreliable source known for fabrications, being the only sources of a factoid, isn't a reason to whitelist either one. A statement made by an unreliable source also isn't a reason to mention it in an encyclopedia article. It should be enough to say something like "Jim Banks' campaign website lists Richard Grenell as an endorser" and cite the primary source. Citing Brietbart would add no value. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per WP:ENDORSE an endorsement should be an independent source rather than a primary. Additionally, I thought it was worth requesting since per WP:BREITBART "can still be used as a primary source when attributing opinions, viewpoints, and commentary." They are simply reporting on an endorsement (which is essentially an opinion) of one individual to another. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I think added the primary source of Banks' website and a whitelisted Breitbart link would be the best option. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not an opinion, it's a factual claim. If Grenell had written a piece for Breitbart and the endorsement had originally appeared there, then that would be using it as a primary source for an opinion - but that isn't what happened here. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need to reference this page as I am a trying to grow my presence as a social media personality and this is currently one of the only online pages that references my date and place of birth, etc. the aim is as my presence grow to keep reviewing the references to add any other sources of information to my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamerAndBeliever96 (talkcontribs) 22:04, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no Declined. This has been discussed before, and the consensus is that is an unreliable source. WP:RSP says "Famous Birthdays does not provide sources for its content, claim to have an editorial team, or claim to perform fact-checking. Do not use this site for information regarding living persons."
Additionally, an article about you isn't "your" page, and Wikipedia is not the place to "grow my presence". It isn't a publicity medium. Attempting to use it that way will result in your account being blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I need to reference this page as I am a trying to grow my presence as a social media personality" is not the compelling argument you seem to think. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm translating de:DelaDap into User:Roundish/DelaDap (my draft), and wanted additional sources for the band genre. Can I also have it whitelisted for the article when it is created? --(Roundish t) 21:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. This addition was added to the blacklist by JzG who never logged it (along with many others) in May 2020 due to SEO abuse reported here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2020#More blackhat SEO sources.
I think it would be worthwhile to consider whitelisting the path instead of individual reviews as proposed. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remind me again, why would we whitelist reviews by a non-notable writer on an SEO-spammed site with none of the indicia of being a WP:RS? Wouldn't we start by asking at WP:RSN if these are actually usable as a source? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I said we should consider it. And yes, that starts with an RSN discussion. SEO is orthogonal to reliability; two different issues. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Though both mitigate against inclusion IMO - a genuinely reliable source has little need of SEO spammers. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply], for use in the website's article

What link? - The homepage of Nairaland, a Nigerian internet forum.

Where to use? - The Wikipedia article about the website (wikilinked above), specifically in its infobox.

Why whitelist? - I think it'd be a good idea to have a clickable link to the subject of the article, being a website.

Apparently this website was blacklisted because it was frequently used as a citation for BLPs. (Source, an older request on this page)

This is not a big deal to me personally, I just thought adding a clickable link would be a good idea. Kaasterly (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no Declined. @Kaasterly: We consider requests to whitelist individual pages here, not entire domains. If you have an actual page link (an "about us" page, for example) we could whitelist that. Whitelisting an entire domain is equivalent to removing it from the blacklist, and we  Defer to Local blacklist for requests like that. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand. My intention was to only whitelist the homepage, so the article could have a link for that, but if that's not possible due to the URL being a non-subpage it can go without one. Kaasterly (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaasterly: per MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#The_official_homepage_of_the_subject_of_a_page, we would need an about-page or a full url (including an index.htm) of the index page. Can you please provide a suitable link? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the purpose here, I think only the homepage would be appropriate, as the infoboxes of other internet forums link to the homepage rather than an about-page which I couldn't find on Nairaland. I did find out that in my original post, I didn't type a forward slash at the end, which may be why it seemed I was trying to whitelist the whole domain. With this forward slash, the full url would be I won't press the issue if we can't use that link; I just thought I'd point out that error which may be the reason why my request was declined. Kaasterly (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaasterly, adding a slash to the domain would not make a difference in how it affects blocking. We just need a full url to a suitable landing page, is there not an about age on the site? Dirk Beetstra T C 04:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I looked around and couldn't find one. At best there'd be a forum post from ages ago, and I don't think that would work.
I think the article will have to go without a clickable link. I do appreciate you helping me with this request and giving it a shot. Kaasterly (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I am trying to add some information about how mudras are used in yoga and was unable to add a source from the Art of Living website It says that website is blacklisted? But if the Art of Living organization is a proponent of yoga, and I am trying to describe a yoga practice (mudras) done currently why wouldn't it be allowed? The Mudras page currently has NO discussion of mudra hand gestures at all. Including this source would mean I could add a lot of information to the mudras page about mudra hand gestures *in practice* currently. If someone could please explain this to me or help me in the process of citing this source I would appreciate it. Thank you. Hemmingweigh (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hemmingweigh:  Not done. was blacklisted on Wikipedia in September 2018 due to spamming, and the fact that there was no encyclopedically relevant content on that site. I would say, looking at your proposed link, that it would not be considered a reliable source, treading into credulous WP:FRINGE claims that violate WP:MEDRS. If you disagree, please start a discussion on WP:RSN to get a community consensus of that source's reliability. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Sword Interviews Unblocked

I am requesting that this interview on – WAKEFIELD POOLE INTERVIEW PART 2: ON HIS MASTERPIECE, ‘BIJOU,’ AND HIS 30 YEARS OF CELIBACY – be unblocked so that I can use it on Wakefield Poole's Wikipedia page. It includes detailed information from an interview with the director about his life and projects.

As well, I'm requesting that this interview on - TALKING WITH LEGENDARY ‘NIGHT AT THE ADONIS’ EDITOR BOB ALVAREZ - be unblocked so that I can use it on the Hand In Hand Films Wikipedia page. It includes details on the founding on this film production company and its financiers.Digitalkidd (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)digitalkiddReply[reply]

@Digitalkidd: the problem here is that Wikipedia doesn't consider interviews to be reliable sources, because Wikipedia isn't interested in what article subjects have to say about themselves. Interviews aren't appropriate sources to verify statements of fact in an article, especially if the interview is the only available source of such statements. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe my updates will adhere to Wikipedia policy on interviews (Wikipedia:Interviews). Wikipedia articles use interviews all of the time as part of building background information so I disagree with what you seem to imply here that we just ignore all interviews as a resource. Digitalkidd (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would add that both of these interviews were conducted by Adam Baran who is a recognized LGBTQ journalist and documentarian so they should be considered to meet the threshold of standards. Digitalkidd (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link requested to be whitelisted: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wikigs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Domain:

This domain is the only legitimate website for the Lion Club, for which a page already exists ( and is currently in the earlier stages of updating and editing. If the page is going to be able to cite the organization itself this particular xyz domain would have to be whitelisted.

Adding this again because it was archived without result.

Hgallo9 (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] is the official website for the registrant of many gTLDs. The article for the .xyz would benefit from a citation about the ownership of other gTLDs (found on their website). Vallode (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vallode: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed removals from Whitelist (web pages or link patterns to re-block)[edit]