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 Newslinger (talk | contribs) at 09:38, 15 April 2020 (→‎www.fin24.com: Removed). 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|951070033#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}}



    Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards

    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)


    xlibris.com

    xlibris.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: xlibris.com/faq.aspx

    For the article Xlibris, which has a broken reference to "FAQ" but when I try to restore it, it gives the error that this page has been blacklisted. Therefore, it is impossible to re-add this reference. There is currently a reference error that cannot be fixed. Since this is the article about the blacklisted site itself, I feel it is important to have this reference whitelisted for this specific case. 100.12.186.112 (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The FAQ is going to be a problem due to its promotional nature, but we could whitelist www.xlibris.com/en/about for the infobox. Guy (help!) 18:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Healthybutsmart.com

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: healthybutsmart.com/red-light-therapy/

    For the article on red light therapy. The web page in question appears to be a rather thorough and carefully researched piece on this kind of light therapy, and I would like to be able to refer to it as a suitable secondary source on RLT's effectiveness for treating arthritis. The author reviews a series of medical journals and presents her findings: there is nothing at all promotional about the article. Please consider whitelisting it. Thanks. A loose necktie (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @A loose necktie: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    resources.infosecinstitute.com

    is a source supporting details of Offensive Security's Offensive Security Certified Professional certification and training, and being well known, etc. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yae4, the site is primarily aimed at selling stuff, and their resources are hence self serving. Surely it supports the material that they are selling. For other use, there should be better, non-promotional, sources. The use of this site was in previous discussions mainly described as only useful for primary sourcing. Just being ‘a source supporting’ does not cut it for me. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    www.fin24.com

    fin24.com is regarded as a pretty reliable source about business related South African news so I am supprised to see it black listed. Its black listing is also causing some impairment when adding South Africa related content on Wikipedia. This is why I feel it should be whitelisted as it will benifit all South Africa related articles and South Africa related economic/business articles in particular.--Discott (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG and Praxidicae: Since this is related to the discussion at WP:SBL § "duleweboffice", do you have any comments on this request? — Newslinger talk 08:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Newslinger, the "about us" page redirects to careers24.com, which is not a good sign. Where's the evidence this is considered a reliable source? Guy (help!) 12:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a link to 24.com on the left side of the site's footer, which indicates that Fin24 is a subsidiary of Media24. Media24 owns a significant number of the publications in List of newspapers in South Africa. I'm not familiar with South African press, but Fin24 appears to be the South African equivalent to Yahoo! Finance. ​— Newslinger talk 21:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparing Fin24 to the South African version of Yahoo! Finance is, I feel, a good comparison. News24 in this analogy would be the equivalent of Yahoo News. Only difference is that Naspers, the company that owns Media24 and all of these subsidiaries, started off as a news company and grew into a tech company much later. Indeed its original and still flagship news brand is Die Burger which is a highly regarded Afrikaans language daily newspaper in South Africa. Although one with a politically controversial distant past in the country. Other subsidiaries like careers24 or traveler24 are much less reliable. The quality of Media24 brands varies greatly in this way. WikiProject Africa has put together a list of trusted news sources from different countries which a) might be helpful to people here generally and b) I encourage people to checkout and double check. As African editors are encouraged by community leaders on the continent to refer to it for African based reliable sources.--Discott (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, just coming back to this. It was added because like Deccan Chronicle and parts of TOI and several other big name newspapers, they do not differentiate their paid content, user submitted content or press releases from their editorial staff (if they even have any.) They often publish pushed PRs and blatant spam. Praxidicae (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    From a spot check, most of the content on Fin24 does not appear to be promotional or user-generated. For example, these articles are linked from the front page:
    • https://www.fin24.com/Opinion/special-feature-inside-zimbabwes-lockdown-20200401
    • https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Africa/zimbabwe-reintroduces-us-dollar-amid-coronavirus-panic-20200326
    • https://www.fin24.com/Companies/Industrial/siza-mzimela-joins-transnet-as-head-of-freight-rail-20200401
    • https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Eskom/wind-power-producers-surprised-by-eskom-force-majeure-20200401
    • https://www.fin24.com/Economy/South-Africa/could-coronavirus-give-sa-another-breather-from-moodys-junk-status-20200326
    While many of the other sites listed in WP:SBL § "duleweboffice" are clearly unreliable, I think blacklisting Fin24 in its entirety is a serious mistake. Neither The Times of India (RSP entry) nor the Deccan Chronicle is blacklisted, even though a portion of their content is not suitable for citation. International examples include Forbes (RSP entry) and social networks like Facebook (RSP entry) and Twitter (RSP entry), none which are blacklisted despite having a large proportion of promotional content. It would be inconsistent to blacklist Fin24, a large media property in South Africa (with an Alexa rank of 62 in South Africa), because a minority of its content is not usable on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 01:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @JzG and Praxidicae: Do you have any objections if I remove \bfin24\.com\b from the list? Considering how prominent News24 (news24.com HTTPS links HTTP links) is, I think this is necessary. — Newslinger talk 00:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    minus Removed from spam blacklist at Special:Diff/951069594. Thanks for your patience, Discott. You should be able to cite Fin24 now. — Newslinger talk 09:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    One specific change.org link

    More or less needed, in my opinion, in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (TV series), as a primary source about the number of signatures which gets from time to time "updated" in the article by various editors, but without changing the old secondary source/without adding a new source. The use of the petition itself is ok per WP:PRIMARY, and would ensure no unsourced numbers are added. (See my last changes in the article in which I restored the old sourced but outdated numbers.) On the other hand, there are other means how to deal with such edits in the article, so if declined, no big deal; not sure how much work it is. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @WikiHannibal: no Declined, these are raw numbers, and are meaningless without independent secondary sourcing. If numbers need to be updated one needs a new independent source stating a new number. Everything else can just be reverted. Updating the numbers based on the daily/hourly/microsecond change of the number is nothing else but soapboxing itself. I presume the petition is still open and active, and that is exactly the reason why we don't want to link to these sources? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind. If I understand it correctly, the petition itself is notable (more or less, for the sake of the debate) bcs it has secondary sources but the rise in the numbers of signatures is not notable (it has no secondary sources). I can live with that, though I belive once notability of the petition has been established (by the sec. source), there is no reason not to use the petition as a primary source about itself, to provide more up to date info. This is not the same as just adding a sentence to an article, stating that "a petition on.. the topic of the article.., was launched"+ref to change.org. (Which is why change.org was blacklisted, I guess.) WikiHannibal (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiHannibal, the reason the petitions are on the blacklist is that indeed it is direct soapboxing (though the sentences tend to be 'vote on the petition to ... [change.org HERE]'). We tend to only whitelist open petitions if the petition is the subject of the article (not, like here, if it is related to the subject of the article - that is true for every petition that one might want to link). Besides being able to use open petitions as primary sourcing after whitelisting, one can then always also again add 'vote on the petition to ... [change.org HERE]'. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    One specific youtu.be link

    relevant wikipedia page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglewood,_California Hello, new to wikipedia. The requested addition to the whitelist is not a whole website, but one exeption. This link is required for referencing as it denotes that Ian Carter (IDubbbz) and Michael Stevens (Vsauce) live in Inglewood, California. This is unique as both are youtubers, so a native youtube link for referencing would be natural. It's said in one of Ian Carter's videos off handedly. I've used this info to add that they are notable residents of Inglewood.

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: youtu.be/YjBTUs_3pms?t=53

    it also goes to the appropriate time in the video where Ian says the information. Thanks. Sorry if I got anything wrong. 6th of April, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VN28 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @VN28: no Declined, we do not use shortening services (and especially not the youtu.be one, which are heavily spammed by spambots). Please expand the link to come from 'youtube.com'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    One specific bitcointalk link

    The sidechains article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidechain_(ledger)) lacks a reference to when the term "sidechain" was first publicly used. The oldest known public reference to this term seems to be in the aforementioned article on bitcointalk, but bitcointalk website is blacklisted. Therefore I request an exception to link to this page in order to provide the proper historical reference and definition of the term. Historical references are useful to explain how the term was used originally and compare to its definition nowadays.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SergioDemianLerner (talk • contribs)

    @SergioDemianLerner: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, but the rationale is blatant WP:OR. Guy (help!) 08:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, I would call it blatant primary sourcing (though I agree that using a wiki for sourcing is a no-no). Dirk Beetstra T C 08:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, The OR is "the first public use of the term dates back to 2012" - this is a mention (in an unreliable source) but who says it's the first public mention? The wiki doesn't support the claim. There's a problem with bitcoin.it HTTPS links HTTP links as well, of course. Guy (help!) 10:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, that stands and falls with finding a source that uses it earlier - until then this is the source that uses it first. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, and that's original research, Dirk. "This is the earliest I can find" is not the same as "this is the earliest (ref: reliable source saying it's the earliest). Dictionaries can do this, and we can then cite the dictionaries as authorities for first use, but Wikipedia editors can't. Guy (help!) 11:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific Page for Whitelisting dailyhunt.in

    The article Hyderabad State cites the website dailyhunt.in: I would like to have the specific page included in the whitelist.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp2593 (talk • contribs)

     Not done. Hi Jp2593, that page is taken from the Deccan Chronicle article "Letters leave a rich legacy of rulers". DailyHunt is on the spam blacklist because it takes articles from other sources, and we suspect that these republications are copyright violations. Please cite the original article from the Deccan Chronicle, instead. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    uaecashloans.com (without spaces)

    Recently I have tried to add reference to an article named credit score. I used the web template, I then added a URL to the site that hosted the article. The website that hosts the article appears to be blacklisted. The reference to article was relevant. May be before when I tried to add reference, mistakenly I did it wrong. That is why the website got blacklisted. I am new to wiki and that may be the reason for my mistake. I request you to remove it from blacklist and help me to learn to do it correctly. Please consider whitelisting it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoj Kr Das (talk • contribs)

    There is absolutely no value in whitelisting this. Find an actual source. Praxidicae (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done This site is blacklisted as it was extensively and deliberately spammed. It is not, in any way, a reliable source and should not be added to any articles. I'm sure you can find other sources since you are here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and not to promote your own financial interests, correct? Kuru (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    -Its a humble request to whitelist it. As I am new to Wiki I made mistake unknowingly. Sure will not add any link from this domain to any article. But please request you to whitelist it. Manoj Kr Das (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ps: @Kuru: see this user. Praxidicae (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ps: @Kuru: @Praxidicae: I understood the thing. But it happened due to lack of knowledge of editing an article in Wiki. I assure it wont happen again. Kindly request you to whitelist my domain. Manoj Kr Das (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked this account as a sock and promotion-only account. Kuru (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    www.cbronline.com/news/philips_buys_headstart

    To be used as a citation to justify statements that Philips acquired Vendex, thus definitely linking the two companies in ownership. The web citation www.cbronline.com/news/philips_buys_headstart is to be used in the fore mentioned manner on articles: Vroom & Dreesmann, Philips Computers
    Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    DeNoel, This is a Catch-22. If this is not covered in other sources then it's WP:UNDUE, asnd if it is, we should use them instead. Guy (help!) 08:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I get what you're saying, but if I don't add a citation, then all statements that Vendex was a Philips brand, get removed for lack of a citable source. That has already happened once, and I'd like to avoid further deletions for lacking citable sources. You're saying that rather than permitting that one CBR page which appears to be properly written, to look for other sources... but can't we do both, use the link and look for more sources? What's the point of having a Whitelist request Interface for granting exceptions to individual pages, if you won't even say what the problem is with that one CBR link? If the site is still too spammy even for that one link, then just say so; that is a reason.
    Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from Whitelist (web pages or link patterns to reblock)

    bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93848.msg1037745#msg1037745

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93848.msg1037745#msg1037745

    This was used in an article but fails WP:RS. The cited authority is "a63ntsm1th" and it's a forum posting. It's also WP:OR: we have no source for this being the earliest mention other than the editor whose first ever edit was requesting whitelisting, and whose only other edit was adding the link. Guy (help!) 08:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=951070033"