Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beetstra (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 14 November 2019 (→supermemo.guru: Added using SWHandler). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives (current)→

    Spam blacklists
    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:

    1. The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
    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|926115213#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:
    no Declined {{Declined}}
     Not done {{Notdone}}
    Information:
     Additional information needed {{MoreInfo}}
    information Note: {{TakeNote}}



    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)


    justjaredjr.com

    I am not sure why this page is blocked from being listed on Wikipedia, but I need this specific link to cite a source in the filmography section on the article of Kelli Berglund. There is no need to whitelist the site itself, I am only requesting that the specific link posted above is whitelisted. If you need more information from me, I will provide it as best as I can. Eightsixofakina (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    explore.org

    I tried to add a link to explore.org/livecams and was told it is blacklisted. That seems strange, as Explore.org is one of the leading organizations worldwide for education about wildlife and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Is this a mistake? Has some troll put it on the blacklist? Please investigate!
    techlady

    Three .onions

    Moved from MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:

    BBC's Tor-accessible site, allowing direct access to BBC News via that service. Blacklisting is not necessary as the blanket *.onion ban is mostly for all of the barely-accessible and very shady content on the Darkweb, not this. Near as I can tell, the only *.onion URI around here is Facebook's for some reason. Not sure why we are only linking out to their walled garden surveillance network and not reliable news sources or valuable non-profits. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Freedom of the Press Foundation's Tor-accessible site, allowing direct access to BBC News via that service. Blacklisting is not necessary as the blanket *.onion ban is mostly for all of the barely-accessible and very shady content on the Darkweb, not this. Near as I can tell, the only *.onion URI around here is Facebook's for some reason. Not sure why we are only linking out to their walled garden surveillance network and not reliable news sources or valuable non-profits. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ProPublica's Tor-accessible site, allowing direct access to BBC News via that service. Blacklisting is not necessary as the blanket *.onion ban is mostly for all of the barely-accessible and very shady content on the Darkweb, not this. Near as I can tell, the only *.onion URI around here is Facebook's for some reason. Not sure why we are only linking out to their walled garden surveillance network and not reliable news sources or valuable non-profits. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Koavf: no Declined, there is no indication in the articles that these need to be mentioned next to their official sites, we normally list only one with very few exceptions. The reference to facebook is completely unrelated. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, How is it "completely unrelated" when it's doing exactly what I'm asking to do: allow a .onion link? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Koavf, do you see the link on facebook? —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, No, instead we made facebookcorewwwi.onion to discuss just this URI itself. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Koavf, exactly, because the .onion is independently notable. I’m sorry, but I don’t see that for these three (I may be mistaken, but I don’t see an article for a bbc .onion e.g.), and there is (next to) zero discussion showing that these sites’ .onion service is of particular interest in the articles (one mentions that they fund a tor project as well, but that is about it). The prose of their main articles does not seem to warrant a mention of their darkweb activities. I’m sorry, but I see here no need to whitelist these). Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    xvideos.com

    Per /Common requests#About, we would need an about-page or a full url of the index page. Can you please provide a suitable link? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra
    • Regex requested to be whitelisted: info\.xvideos\.com$

    should work. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    penang-traveltips.com

    As per previous listing on the Spam-blacklist and as suggested by Beetstra, posting here. I would like to use https:// www. penang-traveltips.com/francis-light-tomb.htm (I'm adding spaces here or it won't even allow me to save it here) if possible. I know it's not the most authoritative type of site, but together with other info I have which corroborates the researcher (Purdon) mentioned, it's the best I have for a particular bit of info at the moment. Similary, https:// www.penang-traveltips.com/biography-of-captain-francis-light.htm and https:// www.penang-traveltips.com/james-scott.htm would be useful. Any chance they could get whitelisted? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ticketmaster.com

    I would like to use this as the source for uploading the image under fair-use for Allen Event Center. Pbrks (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    gofundme

    Please allow a citation to gofundme for only this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bellini. The GoFundMe page is literally the only place on the internet where this actor's illness has been reported. kstraka (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kstraka: two remarks, first: you ask for a ticketmaster.com link but talk about gofundme, can you please check. second: you are walking a very thin rope on BLP if theonly source on a illness is in a gofundme (which could be opened by anyone). Even if it was not a BLP, I would question whether this is then something worth including, is it encyclopedically relevant to include this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    omicsonline.org

    I would like to use this for this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group It's been in the article since 2017, but the spam blacklist caught it in my edit. The first webpage is cited for how much the company charges in publishing fees. The second webpage is just used in the infobox for their official website.TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @TheTechnician27: for the second, as 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 03:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Link requested to be whitelisted: www.omicsonline.org/about.php this is the organization's 'About Us' page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheTechnician27: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    breitbart.com

    • breitbart.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/11/17/breitbart-news-network-born-in-the-usa-conceived-in-israel/
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/local/2014/04/07/wasserman-schultz-pelosi-condemn-tasteless-and-undignified-breitbart-california-viral-art/
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2013/02/20/NYDaily-source-friends-hamas/
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2017/01/08/fake-news-fake-news-media-sow-division-with-dishonest-attack-on-breitbarts-allahu-akbar-church-fire-story/
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2017/01/03/dortmund-mob-attack-police-church-alight/
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2016/11/21/fake-news-new-york-times-joseph-goldstein-falsely-claims-breitbart-birther/
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/02/07/Hagel-Friends-of-Hamas-WH/
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/11/17/breitbart-news-continues-international-expansion-with-launch-of-breitbart-jerusalem/
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/10/26/siriusxm-announces-daily-breitbart-news-radio/

    Hi, I'm back. I would like to use these for this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News. Like last time, these links were already in the Wikipedia article.

    I know there are nine pages, but the long and short of all this is that all of these pages are being used to assert what Breitbart has said about itself, to assert when sections of Breitbart launched, and/or to assert that a specific Breitbart article exists (linking to said article). Basically, rest assured none of these are going to be used in the article to reinforce far-right propaganda. Again, all of these links are already in the article (the URLs in the Wikipedia article contain HTTP instead of HTTPS, but they all link to the same webpages); I just want to be able to place archive URLs to them without the blacklist flagging them up. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Does no reliable independent source discuss Breitbart's claims? If not they are probably WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 22:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    ritualabuse.us

    ritualabuse.us: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com I would like this site to be white listed. Apparently it was blacklisted in this discussion. I don't see it as threatening and I doubt that anyone will use it for spamming.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 08:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Process questions aside, that site is not a reliable source for anything. There's no way it should ever be linked on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sparrow (麻雀): It WAS obviously and evidently spammed, so it is threatening and your doubt is more a hope.
    I suggested to whitelist specific links for which use can e shown, you don't ask for that, and do not show use. What do you want to use where? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly the more I research about the topic of extreme violence and torture perpetrated by organised groups (often linked to pedophile networks, red light milieu, theft, smuggeling, money laundring)... the more scared I get. I want to write about ritual violence- as we call it in my country. The term "Ritual abuse" has been slandered so much in the English speaking world, that it can't be saved. We'll go for a different one. There is no reason why any of those links should be blacklisted. They are mostly collections of literature, links and some results of surveys that were conducted. No reason to blacklist them. I don't even want to say where I want to use what. I have been wanting to write legitimate articles on the legitimate phenomenon of extreme violence tantamount to torture that is used to break and control children and most young women within dark parts of the sex industry of the organised crime world. Thus I want to use those links. I am planning on working with those links both in English and German on the topic of ritual violence - or non state torture.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 11:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    youtu.be/V5iLXnpPhZ8

    Hello Wikipedians, I am attempting to use this video in my User Box, and because it is of youtube.be format, I cannot. Can someone please unlock it so I can cite it in my userbox? Thanks, SilentRevisions (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    SilentRevisions, the youtu.be shortener, as with most URL shorteners, is blocked. You should be able to link to the full URL though [1]. That said, I'm having real issues seeing how that video is a reliable source for anything. Ravensfire (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The request is for use in a userbox, not in an article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SilentRevisions: no Declined, use the expanded link, as explained above and in the box you see when you try to save the page with the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    petition.parliament.uk/archived

    After reading Common Requests, I would still like to add a link to an archived petition on the UK Parliament website. 'petition.parliament.uk' is the official list of all open and closed petitions for the current Parliament and 'petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions' for the archived petitions from previous Parliaments. As none of the archived petitions is open, and it contains the full text of the petition, the Government response (if any) and a link to any debate (video and transcript), I believe this is a useful resource beyond media reports about the petition.

    Initially it would be used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_the_Brexit_withdrawal_agreement#History where this link contains most of the items that failed verification. Robertm25 (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Robertm25, I can see the specific links to be useful sometimes, but I am afraid that allowing all will result in also those unsupportable by secondary sources to creep in. —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    As this an official UK Parliamentary site, I don't think it faces the same issues as other petition sites, and should be treated in the same way as, say, references to Hansard. In addition, the archived site only contains closed petitions so I would suggest is not vulnerable to campaigns. (The non-archived part of the site contains a mixture of open and closed petitions but I'm not sure of an easy way to distinguish them, so could leave that disallowed.) The trouble with only allowing secondary sources is that they do not always contain links to the original and therefore I would say could be misleading or incomplete in themselves especially if you can't link directly in the article. Robertm25 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Robertm25, it is a petition site, it did get added for a reason, namely that people us it for soapboxing. Whether on a low key site, or on the uk.parliament/whitehouse, people start a petition because they feel strong about something and they want the world to know about it. Wikipedia is a perfect place for that.
    Yes, the closed petitions are less of a risk. However, by far the most are not even remotely worth to be mentioned, but still will be without secondary sources. The remainder can easily be handled by whitelisting. The point is that secondary sources need to exist before we would consider to use the primary source for anything. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    sciencepublishinggroup.com

    Needed for WP:ABOUTSELF citations at Science Publishing Group; two citations had to be commented out in my cleanup edit just to save the page again (the citations were already present before this website was blacklisted, though I made one more specific, and reformatted both to use citation templates). I actually question the wisdom of blacklisting this host at all. The website isn't a bogus journal, it's the website of a publisher of bogus journals, and isn't likely to be cited for anything other than claims made by the publisher. Bad journals they publish should be individually blacklisted. But for now, I just care about these two URLs. PS: If they're providing full journal text under http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/... addresses, then maybe just block all of those, except .../journallist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @SMcCandlish: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    yourstory.com

    Needed for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NewsBytes_App — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.167.80 (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined - as the name implies, yourstory.com is a PR platform that is heavily engaged in startup promotion using company-submitted information. While it could theoretically be used in exceptional cases for trivial details, it is not an independent reliable source for substantial content. Please base your draft on independent non-promotional sources. GermanJoe (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    supermemo.guru

    It seems that all .guru websites are blanket blacklisted. I can easily imagine why this is the case, but in this particular situation, supermemo.guru is the website of Piotr Wozniak, creator of SuperMemo. I was editing that page, using information from supermemo.guru explaining the creator's motivations for certain features as a reference. I would like to be able to add references to supermemo.guru on the relevant pages. Thanks! -Ramzuiv (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ramzuiv: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    cbronline.com/news/fire-os-google

    Requesting whitelist of a specific page. It looks like original reporting to me, and I couldn't find the article at another site. It includes, "Speaking to Computer Business Review,..." which also indicates original reporting. Benefiting article: Replicant_(operating_system) is initial page, but it could possibly benefit a few others too. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=926115213"