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 20:15, 15 June 2020 (→sahafat.xyz: 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|962744946#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)


    breitbart.com/author/Gary-Graham/

    The link currently at Gary Graham is broken because the page won't save otherwise. It should be pretty obvious that a Breitbart author link is the best reference for the statement that he's a Breitbart contributor. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: Did I post this wrong? It seems to have been ignored and I don't know why. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Metaknowledge, "X writes at Breitbart, source, X writing at Breitbart" is a terrible idea. Just find a secondary source that identifies him as a Breitbart author. Guy (help!) 22:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: I don't see the problem, but so be it. Does his Twitter bio suffice? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Metaknowledge, you really don’t have a secondary source? Maybe it is then not woeth mentioning, no-one seems to care. Dirk Beetstra T C 02:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I honestly don't know what kind of sources make you guys happy for a fact whose truth value isn't in dispute. There are secondary sources around like this book, but I'll be the first to admit it looks like a crappy source. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Metaknowledge, it's not truth value, it's undue weight. We don't want to say that someone writes for a far-right conspiracist website unless reliable independent secondary sources establish that this fact is significant. Guy (help!) 11:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG: Political activities of actors are routinely included on their pages. Most actors don't write for notable political websites, so the fact that Graham does seems to pass that test, and make it worth a brief mention. I'm not sure why the fact that Breitbart is far-right and conspiracist is relevant to this dicussion, to be honest. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deprecated, and other seriously unreliable, sources are frequently not reliable sources about their own content. If it's a noteworthy fact, then there will be citation to a BLP-suitable source - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    pornhub.com/insights/belle-delphine

    This link is currently blocked and I totally understand why pornhub.com is blocked. I'm trying to add this link as a reference/citation for the following sentence: Pornhub Insights also published an article detailing that Kirschner's videos became the most-disliked in the history of the website.

    I think this is a pretty reasonable usage of the the blocked webpage and the sentence it would be referencing is rather relevant to the prose. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Soulbust: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Hey thank you so much for adding it to the whitelist! However, when I tried to add the https:// variant of the link in the url parameter of the reference, it triggered the spam warning message. Is there any way to fix this? Soulbust (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Soulbust: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist - my script crashed and I did not notice (busy with other things). Trying again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Just tried it out and it's working. Thank you, I really appreciate it! Soulbust (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nolo.com

    1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

    I believe the conclusion of this discussion is that Nolo.com should be whitelisted.
    I don't believe it has been yet, and I would appreciate it if it were so I can use it as a source.

    2.Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

    Any article having to do with law.

    3.Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

    https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/is-violating-a-shelter-in-place-order-a-crime.html

    nolo.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

    I tried to link in a Nolo.com article, and I had to mess up the link so editors could look at it here. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    David Tornheim, what you are looking for is a delisting request at WT:SBL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Crap, wait. I should learn to read:
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/
    That is what we want. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Tornheim: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Thanks. That takes care of the problem indeed. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    420chan.org

    420chan.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 - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Per MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist § 420chan.org, permalink [1]. While there I asked that the entire domain be unblocked, User:JzG refused on the grounds that the list actually had been recently purged, which I didn't know, so if it wasn't really needed it wouldn't even be there. I agree with them that this domain will never be a source on any article but 420chan, so I am narrowing my request to only allow the index through so that I may link it in {{Infobox website}}, similar to what we do for 4chan, etc. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 10:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Psiĥedelisto: 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 10:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Sorry, missed that
    Link requested to be whitelisted: 420chan.org/index.php
    seems to work fine. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 11:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Psiĥedelisto: No probs! plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-ping User:Psiĥedelisto, my script seems to have mispinged due to an error of me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    420chan.org/what.htm

    @Beetstra: Do you mind also allowing Link requested to be whitelisted: 420chan.org/what.htm? Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 12:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Psiĥedelisto, for the record, do you mind to state the use/reason? Dirk Beetstra T C 12:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Sure. I plan to write this: According to its founder, its name is a portmanteau of 420, a slang word originating in cannabis culture but now applicable to drug culture more generally, and 4chan, another imageboard website., cited to that page, which existed in 2008 (see http://web.archive.org/web/20080207023015/http://www.420chan.org/what.htm. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 12:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Psiĥedelisto: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    420chan.org/blog/2015/10/10/first-new-board-in-four-years/

    @Beetstra: Really very sorry to ping you again...I hate doing it three times. Someone on Twitter wondered whether they actually claim the foundation date, or if it only comes from WHOIS, which might be too WP:OR. I did read it on their Facebook page, but it seems like they changed the wording slightly to Est 2005 and there's no archive of it so that's not citeable. I found a blog post, however, that states it outright (their whole blog seems down at moment):
    • http://web.archive.org/web/20190224100651/https://420chan.org/blog/2015/10/10/first-new-board-in-four-years/
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: 420chan.org/blog/2015/10/10/first-new-board-in-four-years/
    I'd like to cite this as well. It should be allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF. Instead of pinging you a fourth time, I'll just refrain from adding any more links :P It might make sense to whitelist the whole blog, but obviously it's up to you. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 13:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm the one that forgot you need to put the username on the same line as the signature to make a ping, Beetstra. Stuff's not going my way today. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) 13:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Psiĥedelisto: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    swarajyamag.com/about-us

    About Us page for Swarajya, used in infobox and "External links" section. — Newslinger talk 20:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. — Newslinger talk 20:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    www.tradedoubler.com/

    The Tradedoubler article currently lists tradedoubler.com/en/about/ (space added to get around the filter) as the company's website, which is an overly specific URL to a sub-part of the corporate website. I was trying to change it to the top-level URL https:// www.tradedoubler.com/ (with HTTPS for good measure, space added to get around the filter) but ran into the spam filter. I understand why people must be prevented from spamming Wikipedia with their affiliate links, but it should be quite ok to link to the website of an affiliate-marketing company from the article about said company.

    Linking to the top-level page without any affiliate codes should be of limited concern from a spam perspective. ehn (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ehn: per /Common requests#About, that is what we normally do: we link to an about-page or a full url (including an index.htm) of the index page. Top domain is often the reason why the sites were blacklisted, and also abusable in other ways. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I see. This is, however, not what we normally do for other company articles. The link typically goes to the top-level web page, not an about page or something similar. It seems that we're compromising Wikipedia quality for technical reasons.
    I understand some URLs are blacklisted because the content is controversial, offensive, obscene etc. But in the case of an affiliate marketing company, I presume it's because people try to insert their own affiliate links on Wikipedia to make money. In that case, linking to the corporate website with no affiliate codes should not create any problems. What are we trying to protect against here? ehn (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehn, no, they are generally blacklisted because they are spammed. We protect against further spamming, which is still possible with the top domain, and still abusable through the top domain. (Not explained per WP:BEANS)
    We link to the official website, even if it fails WP:EL, “to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself”. An about page just does that. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    beenverified.com

    Someone hijacked the links of my company's article page BeenVerified, and editing it back caused our actual homepage to get added to the global blacklist so we cannot undo the hijacked edit

    The timeline of events:

    April 10 - A new Wikipedia user performs their only edit - on our company's page, changing the URL to a domain under their own control (but not the text of the link). This ultimately redirects the user to our homepage, after setting some referral links along the way.

    May 22 - We notice the change and revert that edit to the page, resetting the link to our official home page.

    May 23 - The user changes the URL on our page back to their hijacked domain.

    May 26 - The global spam blacklist is updated with our home page URL.

    We are no longer able to revert the edit. How do we proceed from here? Reading through the recurring requests section, it seems like simply asking for it to get removed will be denied, yet at the same time someone is allowed to hijack our URL - this does not seem like what Wikipedia was built for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swbvofficial (talk • contribs) 20:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Swbvofficial: no Declined, this needs to be done on meta:  Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Handled there. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    gcaptain.com

    gcaptain.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: gcaptain.com/financial-crisis-hits-ocean-carriers

    I propose that gcaptain.com be whitelisted for B+H Ocean Carriers, because it has information about that company in 2012. PrussianOwl (talk) 16:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't follow. If it wasn't reported by reliable sources, why should it be added in the article with an unreliable source? Praxidicae (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    see also these discussions [2][3][4] Praxidicae (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PrussianOwl, "... said in a news release ...", "... said in January regarding the state of the shipping industry ...", "... said it has ...", "... according to its website ..." is all pure regurgitation of other, primary, sources. Find the originals and cite the pure primary work, if it is passable without independent sources. Dirk Beetstra T C 16:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com interview

    I propose that these examiner.com links (in addition to their non-archived versions) be whitelisted because they include a song-by-song interview of Marshall Crenshaw's debut album and would thus be useful in adding to the album page, the artist page, and potential song pages I would like to create. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Beatleswhobeachboys, material on examiner.com is often created to make money with it (pay-per-view to the creator, not the company). Besides some spamming, that often included linking to scraped content and/or non-unique material, just so the creator would get incoming traffic and hence paid. I would therefore like to hear an assessment on how unique the material is. Are there other suitable sources, or originals, by any chance? Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Dirk Beetstra. I have not found any other source that goes song by song like this. Songs like "There She Goes Again", which was a single and did get some radio play, have yet to be explained by Crenshaw in any other interviews I could find. The author seems reputable enough; I googled him and found that he does do some local news writing in New York at this time. One news article I found cited this as the original source for the interview as well. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the link for that article. Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    aohwheeling.shutterfly.com

    I tried to cite this page in the geography section of Irish road bowling because the group to which this site belongs runs what the page lists to be "the largest Irish road bowling event in the world (although this needs to be cited). I believe that allowing this site to be on here is beneficial to Wikipedia because the group had not been credited on the page. They also make an attempt to substantiate the claim on the article. Allowing this would give citation to the fact that there were 737 participants in 2016. Joesom333 (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Joesom333, do you need the whole domain, or a specific page? Dirk Beetstra T C 02:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    theamericanreporter.com

    Hello, There is an article published about an artist and I want to white list the link which is as followed:

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: theamericanreporter.com/chit2ams-musical-success-is-the-result-of-his-love-for-hip-hop-hard-work-and-his-entrepreneurial-spirit/

    this is for a draft named "chit2am" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.137.104 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to add Spotify links to bio Ronyaug1998 (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ronyaug1998, spotify is not blacklisted, so there is no need to Whitelist. Dirk Beetstra T C 02:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    eduvision

    eduvision.edu.pk: 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

    Eduvision.edu.pk is blacklisted mainly due to spamming. We totally understand the wikipedia policy now, and will never use it for spamming. There were many pages on wikipedia that we thought could link back to eduvision for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_pharmacy_schools_in_Pakistan could be linked to Link requested to be whitelisted: eduvision.edu.pk/institutions-offering-pharmacy-with-field-medical-sciences-at-bachelor-level-in-pakistan-page-1for latest data. but we totally understand now that it is upto the users to add the links or not. We will not insert any links from now on. Requesting a removal please.

    no Declined. We are not removing on request of owners, nor is this a removal request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    sci-hub.tw/alexandra

    Not all the domain but only this page if possible. Erkin Alp Güney 05:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is Alexandra Elbakyan's official autobiography. Erkin Alp Güney 05:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    mydramalist article on feng yu xi guan

    1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

    I am trying to add the above website as a source for the English name of the drama feng yu xi guan(风雨西关) that Chen Kun starred in 2005. I know that mydramalist is not the best of sites to cite as a source but in this case, it is the ONLY English language site available with information about the drama. So I request for this specific link to be whitelisted as a source.

    2.Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

    Chen_Kun

    3.Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

    Link requested to be whitelisted: mydramalist.com/16381-feng-yu-xi-guan

    4.Please add a {{LinkSummary|example.org}}

    mydramalist.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

    SoarThroughTheSky (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SoarThroughTheSky, it is preferred that sources are in English, but there is nothing wrong with sources in other languages. Is there sufficient sourcing in the other languages? Dirk Beetstra T C 17:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @BeetstraThis webpage is a source for the English name of the drama. Another language source would not be able to serve that purpose. SoarThroughTheSky (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SoarThroughTheSky: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Asianbeat article for article of Gokuraku Jodo

    1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

    I make a wikipedia article about the song name Gokuraku Jodo, and when I tried to search a backgound of how Garnidelia making the song and the dance video, I just found the link of that thing only on that site, which i also found the translation of the interview on the same site to but in different language that I used regullary. So I request the link to be whitelisted for the source of my article.

    2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gokuraku_Jodo

    3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

    Link requested to be whitelisted: asianbeat.com/ja/feature/interview/43.html

    4. Please add a {{LinkSummary|example.org}}

    asianbeat.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

    Msonnyandrean (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Msonnyandrean: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Finally, it's worked. Thank you so much Msonnyandrean (talk 18:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    onlyfans.com for onlyfans article

    1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted

    It's the website of the company.

    2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnlyFans

    3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

    Link requested to be whitelisted: https://onlyfans.com/

    Gagarine (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Gagarine: 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 14:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: is onlyfans.com/ considered a full url? That's the URL I need to add in the infobox. Gagarine (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gagarine, We need an about or full URL including index.htm. An about page does exactly what it is supposed to do. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gagarine, I suggest:
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: onlyfans.com/faq
    Which is neutral and away from the mainpage. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    abc.xyz

    official website, needs to be whitelisted after blacklisting all of .xyz. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    xyz domains

    These are official websites on the recently blacklisted XYZ domain. Guy (help!) 14:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Guy (help!) 14:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    elasticplayer.xyz

    I ask that this site be whitelisted immediately and these links restored by JzG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:18 on June 10, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    Moved from SBL. Neutralhomer, I tested six of them and not one of them worked. How do we verify that this is the stations' officially supported streaming platform? Belay that: it's linked fomr at least one website. No clue why it does not work for me, but whateves. Guy (help!) 14:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Neutralhomer: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist and removals rolled back. Thanks. --Guy (help!) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Much appreciated. :) Thank you! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:58 on June 10, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

    quatuor.xyz

    This is the official website for a documentary film about Olivier Messiaen's Quatuor pour la fin du temps; it was being used as an external link on both articles. gnu57 14:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Genericusername57, OK, verified from https://zenviolence.com/quatuor - fixing now. Thanks. Guy (help!) 14:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Genericusername57: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, removals reverted. --Guy (help!) 14:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    petitions.whitehouse.gov (the new homepage)

    This is the homepage for We the People (petitioning system), but I can't make the url= link clickable. The whole site is blacklisted, to prevent every non-notable petition from being linked to. The whitelist re-allows https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/about, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/responses, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/*, and https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/homepage. (See? I added those links here.)

    https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/homepage used to be the site's homepage, but now it is 404, so you can delete that entry ("\bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\/homepage\b") from the whitelist.

    I hope you can add its new homepage, petitions.whitehouse.gov/, without adding the whole site. - A876 (talk • contribs)

    @A876: Per /Common requests, we generally don't whitelist top domains as they a) are often part of the original abuse, and b) can be abused for those who have the will and knowledge to abuse them, which is often true with links to sites where people have POV to push. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought I quite clearly requested that the site's homepage be whitelisted, and not the entire domain. (I don't know why someone would conflate the two.)
    For example, although adding new links to TinyURL.com/* is blocked, the TinyURL article has a link to https://www.tinyurl.com/, as it should. (In this case, the homepage is not whitelisted. If someone were to remove that old link, no one will be able to put it back.)
    I'm just asking for the same thing, that the We the People (petitioning system) article add or be allowed to add a working link to https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ (homepage only). (Whether that is accomplished by a one-time override of the blacklist, or by adding petitions.whitehouse.gov/ to the whitelist, I don't care.)
    Also, https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/about is not the homepage. If it is reasonable or uncontroversial (a default "consensus") to list some other page instead of the site's homepage, then a comment is needed. This is a technical request; a work-around by substituting some convenient other-page that happens to already be whitelisted is not the expected solution. - A876 (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A876, and I think that I was quite clearly pointing to /Common requests, and explained that we do not do that. No, we link to the website to show what a website has to tell about themselves (see WP:EL) an about page fulfills that by definition. I need to see the tinyurl situation. Dirk Beetstra T C 02:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, a link is not an explanation. /Common requests doesn't say what you think it says. (btw, you don't actually say what you think it says.)

    You said "we generally don't whitelist top domains". (I never suggested any such thing.) Now you have repeated the error saying "we do not do that" (as if you still don't understand).

    /Common requests does not say that every page on every petition site and URL-shortening site is anathema (and in fact they are not – do "see the TinyURL situation" and others that link to the site, namely Bitly, Change.org, and (formerly) We the People (petitioning system)). It says "These sites are blocked for blanket reasons and it is rare that any page from them is whitelisted. " Okay, it is rare. Petition sites are blacklisted overall, for good reason ("we don't allow users to add links to Wikipedia to get people to visit and perhaps sign their petition"). Obviously linking the homepage (and possibly other pages) is okay, because it is normal and because doing so does not link to any specific petition (which meets the purpose of the ban).

    Linking a website's homepage is the norm in a template in an article about that website. I'm sure "official website" was set to https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/homepage because that was the homepage. Now, the old homepage URL is a 404 and the homepage resides at https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ (as it always should have). It follows that the whitelist entry should be changed to drop the former and add the latter. What could be simpler? I see no advice or consensus to list https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/about instead of the page that the site set as its homepage. I see no advice or consensus to list an about page instead of the homepage even if someone thinks it is "good enough" or even "better than" the homepage. - A876 (talk) 04:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A876, A876, as is explained there, whitelisting the homepage 'petitions.whitehouse.gov' is negating the blacklist, abusable in itself, and abusable through other ways. As with spam, people have a reason to abuse it - they are actively searching for support. That is why we do not generally whitelist top domains. That explanation is in /Common requests at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#The_official_homepage_of_the_subject_of_a_page.
    Again, "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself" (my bolding). We link to a neutral landing page, an about-page does fulfill the function perfectly and avoid ALL possibilities of abuse.
    Just to summarize:
    I hope this explains. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    tinyurl.com

    The top page was overridden after explicit advice not to link to the top domain (though this happened way before we instated the advice at /Common requests#The official homepage of the subject of a page). Whitelisting this per that advice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Change.org

    The link to change.org itself is still there, presumably it has not been revised after change.org got blacklisted. Using the /about per the advice at /Common requests#The official homepage of the subject of a page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    sahafat.xyz

    I checked the "sahafat.xyz" links, they are image repository of the archive of sahafat.in, website of a print newspaper. The links in this case don't look like to be spam. Also, it is an official repository. The link to .xyz flows from main website, it is like, http://www.sahafat.in/index.html has a menu link to http://www.sahafat.in/archive_index.html, where, on selection of a date, archived newspaper is loaded in image format, the location of this image is at www.sahafat.xyz; so it seems to be legit. Also, there is no alternate of this archive available, if anyone has to quote articles from older version, then they need to add this link but that doesn't works and we are missing references. example links,

    1. http://www.sahafat.xyz/mumbai/May2020/31_05_2020/p-1-1.htm
    2. http://www.sahafat.xyz/lucknow/May2020/01_05_2020/p-1-1.htm
    • which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

    Currently, it is regarding Syed Jawad Naqvi, but as it is one of the leading Urdu dailies of India, it definitely has implication on other articles.

    • specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

    Link requested to be whitelisted: www.sahafat.xyz

    --Fztcs

    @Faizhaider: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    \bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\/homepage\b

    • Regex requested to be whitelisted: \bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\/homepage\b

    To be removed, is a 404. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The site's homepage used to be https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/homepage. Now that URL is a 404, so its whitelist entry serves no function, and should be removed (as above).

    The site's homepage is now https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ (where, as most webmasters would agree, it should have resided from the get-go). It follows that a whitelist entry (for this one page) should be added, to replace the one that is to be removed. - A876 (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=962744946"