MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives (current)→

The associated 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 section title, like === === .
  2. The Wikipedia page that you want to use the link on.
  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, confirmation that you have read the reason why requests regarding the site are commonly denied and that you are happy to proceed.

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 this page). Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar without anything after the / character) will be denied. If you wish to have a site fully unblocked it would need to be listed in the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

You will not be notified when your request has been responded to, even if you ask. You should 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 about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in your request being summarily denied.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|888857802#section_name}}

Note that requests from new and 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 Request withdrawn {{withdrawn}}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:
 Declined {{Declined}}
Not done {{Notdone}}
 Additional information needed {{MoreInfo}}
 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] - wikipedia policy enforcement[edit] Linksearch en (http) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

Link requested to be whitelisted:

This would be to give the original source of the WP:LUNATICCHARLATANS quote. Should be whitelisted across Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not needed, there are independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but the best way to verify a quote is to give its original source. It's also heavily (at least 9 times) used across Wikipedia, and there's no reason why that specific sublink should not be allowed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: 9 times? In mainspace? (as we generally 'restrict' whitelistings to specific a specific page or pages, maybe it is best to list them).
@JzG: I understand your 'not needed', but we do allow convenience links and primary sources. The petition is closed, so there is not a chance of soapboxing (unless you want to consider the essay itself soapboxing). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
In various meta space. Couldn't care about mainspace uses. If I (or anyone else) want to put that quote in my user space or in Wikipedia space, with the original source, I should be able to.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: OK, the first part I agree with. The second part I disagree more with. No, you cannot put anything you want outside of mainspace (or more general, content-related namespaces). WP:IWANTIT is not a reason for inclusion either (you cannot turn your userpage into a soapbox either). I agree more with your initial sentiments of this discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
So we're forbidden to quote Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, about Wikipedia policy, with the original source for his words because ... why exactly? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I have no friggin' clue where you read that in my words. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure I read anything in your words, but you did accuse me/imply I was planning on WP:SOAPBOXING. I made a very reasonable request for a link to be whitelisted, a request which remains unanswered, and a question about what the reason for keeping this link blacklisted, despite zero potential of threats to Wikipedia if it were whitelisted, which also remains unanswered. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: whoa, there. Remember, Beetstra's first language is not English (fluent though he is), and text always loses all nuance. The issue here is a purely pragmatic one: tacitly encouraging linking to a primary source where multiple reliable independent secondary sources exist, and thus setting a potential precedent based on our (shared, I think) appreciation of Jimbo's unequivocal pro-science stand here. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
"multiple reliable independent secondary" No source will ever back the full original quote, in its full original context, free of commentary, as strongly and as directly as the original source of the quote. This is true here, as it is for any other quote. A source, which, again, remains blacklisted, for apparently no other reason than some WP:ABF-worry about WP:SOAPBOXING or other nonexistent threats. I'm not asking to get some Encyclopedia Dramatica subpage whitelisted to sneak in WP:BLP violations in articles / create attack pages here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: No, I am not accusing you of soapboxing - you can imply that you should be able to do whatever you want to do, but there are certain things you cannot do even if you want to (and I guess that nuance is lost in text). Your arguments 'This would be to give the original source' and ' the best way to verify a quote is to give its original source' are credible (though outside of content namespaces I do not see an urgent need for the link, nor is wanting it on your userpage an urgent need). But an argument 'If I want to put that quote in my user space or in Wikipedia ..' is not an argument. Maybe that also gets lost in translation - but I was minded to whitelist this link, except that, with User:JzG's comment, we do not have consensus to do so (yet?).
FYI, (and many other petition sites) is blacklisted because of constant soapboxing - 'help us save XXX by voting for our petition [here]'. The use of this as a source is limited (though indeed not non-existent), but barring some exceptions (of which this particular one, IMHO, is one), the existence of a petition should only be reported when supported by independent sources, which in almost all cases removes the necessity of the primary source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
" (and many other petition sites) is blacklisted because of constant soapboxing - 'help us save XXX by voting for our petition [here]'." I'm well aware of why is blacklisted, and I support that reason. However, linking to a very specific reply to the original petition to support a quote is not that reason. I'm not asking that a petition gets whitelisted because I want Pokémon to be outlawed for corrupting children here. I want me, and others, to be able to give the original source for a statement by Jimmy Wales about Wikipedia policy. A source, which again, is already quoted 9 times various in Wikipedia pages. Blacklisting that very specific subpage of, does not in any way further the goal of protecting Wikipedia against random petitioners with an axe to grind. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@Headbomb: and I agree, as I stated above. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Then whitelist this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I've been following this discussion for a couple of days, and I think it's time to speak up as an admin who occasionally participates here, editing both the whitelist and blacklist; it isn't just Guy and Dirk doing this.

Sorry to throw a wrench in, here. I see whitelisting this link as the beginning of a slippery slope. If there were a way to whitelist so that the link can be used only in the article currently targeted, that would be fine. But we don't have that capability. That quote, absent of any context as presented on the page, looks to me like a ripe target for soapboxing on other articles that fringe POV pushers feel have suffered from censorship.

My inclination is to stop that from happening before it starts. And the full quote is available from other sources. People can still find the original quotation on themselves. I am not seeing convenience as a valid reason to whitelist. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Do we need a goddamn RFC to whitelist an original source for a damned quote from Jimmy Wales? There is no slippery slope here. Wikipedia editors are not babies whose thoughts need to be policed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no need to whitelist this. I don't find the arguments in favor of whitelisting convincing. If another admin wants to whitelist it, I won't object, however. But I won't do it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
There's no argument to blacklist it in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there is. That specific link isn't blacklisted, the whole site is blacklisted, for good reason. If you want to propose removal, you can make your case at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals but I doubt any suggestion to remove from the blacklist will get very far.
As I said, I have no objection if another admin disagrees with me and whitelists this specific link, but the arguments above don't convince me. Convenience isn't a valid reason to whitelist when the same information is available from reliable sources who saw fit to give it coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The whole website? Yes. That specific part of the website? No. That's why I'm asking for this very specific link to be whitelisted, not asking for the entirety of to be unblacklisted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[edit]

I would like to request a whitelisting of a neutral landing page on en.wikipedia HideMyAss! purely in order to provide the standard Template:URL link in the infobox of this VPN provider that was acquired by the cybersecurity company Avast in 2016. Enabling this link would conform to comparable articles.--Concus Cretus (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Concus Cretus: per /Common requests#About, 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 03:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, would be suitable? Or eventually ?--Concus Cretus (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
* Link requested to be whitelisted:
For script. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Concus Cretus: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[edit]

  • Link requested to be whitelisted:

I would like to request a whitelisting of this page in This website aims to construct complete journal database to assist academics on manuscript submission. The page collects and provides many important ACS Nano journal metrics such as Impact Factor, Acceptance Rate, Journal Research Hotspot, Keywords Trend, Review Speed, Revision Process, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomlasers (talkcontribs)

To make edits like this [1]? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Randomlasers:  Declined, spam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra I admit I did wrong and stupid edit. I won't do it again. Please give me a chance. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranbdomlasers (talkcontribs)

 Declined, again. I don't know what "chance" you want. That specific link has already been deemed inappropriate. That website has no information about who's behind it, where they are located, just a role email at the bottom. I see no reason to whitelist it, and no evidence that it can be considered a reliable source. What is your association with that website? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Anachronist Thanks for your time. I agree your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomlasers (talkcontribs) 00:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[edit]

  • Link requested to be whitelisted:

I applied for the removal of from the global blacklist on this link

User:billinghurst referred me to ask for whitelisting here. He said, was blacklisted because It was abused.

Actually, the info received from the company says that an unknown and inexperienced person started sharing affiliate link with 'referer' parameter all over Wikipedia hoping to get more funds from the company's affiliate programme. He or she hoped to get more traffic from the referred users. This resulted in getting blacklisted. The company has no hands in the spamming process. Uptill now, they don't know exactly who used the site on English Wikipedia.


I apply for whitelisting as directed by user:billinghurst. I think the link should be able to be used at English Wikipedia and override the global blacklisting. is a specialized online e-currency exchange service that monitors rates for dozens of popular conversion pairs in near real-time and offers one-click access to lists of reliable e-currency exchangers capable of helping users complete their transaction quickly and efficiently.

Please consider whitelisting.

Thanks Belmanga101 (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Declined. You present no credible rationale for whitelisting, and you are asking us to whitelist the entire site. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[edit]

A link to the website is valid in the infobox of Ticketmaster where it is already included as plain text in the infobox website parameter. Can this be accommodated? MB 15:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@MB: per /Common requests#About, 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 07:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: MB 13:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@MB: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[edit] Linksearch en (http) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

Link requested to be whitelisted:

I'd like to suggest a change to the Elsevier page, citing this response from the European Commission, which can be found on zenodo. Is this possible? Ryoba (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a non-authoritative source. Where is the original? Guy (Help!) 08:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (,[edit]

In WP:RSN § RfC: The Points Guy, some editors have raised concerns that the blacklisting of The Points Guy (, proposed by me in November 2018) may be excluding usable content.

I'm requesting the whitelisting of the "News" ( and "Reviews" ( sections of The Points Guy, which are the only sections of the site that contain usable content. — Newslinger talk 23:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they are the "only" sections of the site that contain usable content, but I don't see anything else on the site at the moment that I foresee to be reasonably appropriate as a reference. Regardless, these two sections should definitely be whitelisted. feminist (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist and Newslinger: I see many reservations, and many options 3 and 4 in that RfC. I am willing to whitelist these, but prefer to have the RfC run its full time. As there is talk about possible replacements and not being fully independent we may still end up at a case where we want to individually evaluate these instead of blanket. For me: On hold until end of RfC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd note that the whitelisting request was made by the same user who previously requested the blacklisting. feminist (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: .. and I honoured the request for blacklisting (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2018#Sponsored_consumer_finance_blogs). It is just that I do not read in the current RfC a strong feeling of 'this is good material that we should use everywhere', it is more 'it may be of use here and there, though sometimes replaceable, sometimes native advertising / not independent enough'. If an other admin wants to ignore my opinion on the status of the RfC and whitelist regardless then that is a possible choice, or we sit out the RfC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

specific gofundme campaign for citation purposes[edit] Linksearch en (http) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

At my article draft (User:Fourthords/Rescue of the Sea Nymph) I'm trying to cite an unsuccessful (0.1%) GoFundMe campaign: my other reliable source(s) talk about the creation of the campaign and its rate of success at the time of publishing, but none discuss its current state, so I presumed to use the primary source. The specific link that's in my citation is as follows:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted:

Today it's my draft, though I plan to move it to rescue of Sea Nymph in the near future. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Please release the official website, for inclusion in SkyscraperCity, in "External links" section. TheWikiGuardian (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheWikiGuardian: please provide a /about page as per /Common requests. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The "About" page was whitelisted in 2017 (per [2]). But apparently the link was never included in the article - Done now (with a bit of pipe trickery for aesthetics). GermanJoe (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[edit]


I tried to add a link to the article Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization), but it is blocked by spam filter. --Wanderer777 (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Does anybody see what is wrong with the ref? I can not find any relevant regexp in the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I need to poke COIBot (or it has to save a report on it) .. I don't see it either. There are some pretty complex rules on meta where this might be an accidental false positive off, but there are also a good handful of .online domains blacklisted (so it may also be intentional). I'll have a look in a good hour.
Regex requested to be whitelisted:
(to help you further in first instance). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wanderer777: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Ymblanter and Wanderer777: I asked coibot, who tells me that it is .*\.(ga|cf|ml|gq|online|site)\/.*?\d{4,5}[-\/]\d{1,2}[-\/]\d{1,2}.*. That rule was added in response to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isla Riordan by User:MER-C (hereby pinged). It looks like this site is collateral damage to that one, but I'd prefer MER-C to make that call. If so, we can whitelist the whole site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I think the whole site is better. --Wanderer777 (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[edit]

I'm trying to add the correct number of total signatures for a list on UK Parliament petitions website. It's a petition from 2007 and the current BBC reference shows a total of 1.7 million signatures. However, as the archived page demonstrates, it increased to 1,811,414. I can't find the final number elsewhere. I read /Common requests but this petition ended more than 12 years ago, so WP:SOAP shouldn't apply. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)[edit] removal[edit]

This isn't a reliable source, the whitelisting request is from an IP with no other edits and I don't see any evidence that we should be using this site as a reference. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be in the whitelist anymore. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems[edit]

I wish to restore a couple of paragraphs from the 20:29, 19 April 2017 version of Plummer v. State, but an edit filter is stopping me.

This version was discussed extensively in two RfCs and a consensus was arrived at (See Talk:Plummer v. State#Request for Comment - Internet meme section and Talk:Plummer v. State#Request for Comment - Internet meme section - 1st revision)

In that version, the article said

"Plummer v. State' is cited in Internet blogs and discussion groups but often misquoted:"

This was followed by a copy of the misquote with citations to the the two major unreliable websites that pretty much all of the other unreliable websites cite when they misquote the law.

After that came the actual text of Plummer v. State from reliable sources.

One of the two sources we used as citation for what the sources themselves said was (spit!).

During the discussion that led to this version, the consensus was that we should cite where the misquotes are found, under the rule at WP:SELFSOURCE that questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves -- in other words is reliable for establishing that said something.

Since then an edit filter was added disallowing which prevents me from restoring the version we discussed and agreed upon.

Because of this, I am asking that an exception be made allowing to be cited on Plummer v. State and on Bad Elk v. United States, for the sole purpose of using it as a source for certain very widely believed pieces of false information that claims to be true.

Before doing the actual restore, I plan on posting another RfC to make sure we still have consensus for this. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The only page from infowars that we need to be able to cite is, The rest of infowars should remain blocked if at all possible.
When I just tried to post the above, the edit filter stopped me, so I munged the URL. This means that I cannot post the RFC on the Plummer v. State talk page without hitting the filter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Guy Macon: please file a request for whitelisting above (for the record, and then I can use my whitelisting script). Mention the link there without prepended http://, it will not be a link, but one can always copy-paste it into their address bar. (this should be made clearer in the instructions). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to delete this section after deciding one way or the other whether to whitelist. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


mentioning a blacklisted link[edit]

In trying to answer a question about which specific url I wanted white-listed, I kept getting told I couldn't name it because it was black-listed URL. Can't the software allow black-listed URLs be listed on this one page? (Okeh, I got around it by truncating, but still.)Kdammers (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kdammers: When you edit this page, you get a massive red box at the top of your window, in which is mentioned (partially bolded): "Request must include the link(s) you wish to add and the article(s) to which you wish to add them. Leave out the http:// part, otherwise you will not be able to save this page.". It also has a 'format of the request' as a remark. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Where is the massive red box? I didn't notice it before, and I don't see it now (I use Firefox)? Kdammers (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Kdammers: if you edit this section, there is a yellow box (2 lines at the top), just below is a big pink/red box at the top (16 lines), and then a collapsed green box (2 lines). It is the pagenotice, so that should show on every browser. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


Why my site this link is Block ?? This page contain 100% accurate information but when i'm doing reference it shown my page is block — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleGarcia (talkcontribs) 12:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

@NicoleGarcia: Because it was spammed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Ooh Sorry but now you can check upper url all info is okay and accurate is there any possibility to get back my site on wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
@ and NicoleGarcia: per m:Terms ofuse, WP:SPAM and WP:COI (all of which you have been pointed to years ago): No. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Every Problem or issues has a solution i want a chance kindly tell me the way how i can prove myself i know our company Employees do this thing. I'm so sorry for this its a humble request. you can check our company site and visit our office we are working almost last 5+ years. We have almost 10-15k+ Happy Customers. we have 3 Office and a Production house in Illinois, USA. One office and production house in Pakistan and India. i'm requesting you dear Kindly Give me one chance to proof my self tell its solution. Block from wikipedia its biggest loss for my company.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
The current solution seems to be working just fine, thanks. Kuru (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beetstra: @Kuru: Now shell i replace the link or not ? {{subst:NicoleGarcia}}
@NicoleGarcia: You cannot replace, it is blacklisted, and we generally do not entertain requests by site owners. It was spammed, therefore it was blacklisted. Unless totally independent editors in good standing do see a need for this link, it will not be de-blacklisted. You can try to propose, in the right section above, a specific link for a specific use and see if it passes (though again, by a non-independent user, those requests are also generally rejected). Until then, this will be Rejected. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Ooh Could you Guide me how i can submit the request in upper department ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleGarcia (talkcontribs)
See instructions above, add a new section into the correct section. (and please, start signing your posts). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)