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 04:06, 7 April 2021 (→‎armariuminterreta.site: 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|1016432450#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)


    developer.roblox.com

    Similarly to the above (blox.roblox.com), I wanted to link developer.roblox.com/en-us/articles/Creating-Your-First-Game as a source for some terminology (such as "obby") - this is a site of developers of games there, so it could possibly used to provide reference to some software development techniques etc. therefore a whole-domain whitelist could be considered. If not, please just whitelist that particular link.  « Saper // @talk »  12:29, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Onion URL of Deutsche Welle

    dwnewsvdyyiamwnp.onion: 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: dwnewsvdyyiamwnp.onion
    This is the official site of Deutsche Welle, however, it isn't allowed to be directly added without a confirmation as far as I know because it's a Onion URL. Here is the announcement of Deutsche Welle about its Onion URL. Ahmetlii (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahmetlii, the official site of the Deutsche Welle is https://dw.com. We do not need to list all official websites of a subject. Dirk Beetstra T C 14:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ahmetlii: did you read /Common requests? --Stifle (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stifle yes, although I didn't notice that I should not request a whitelisting at first look because it seems like necessary at first look per Template:Onion URL, however, I realized that the criteria is only for creating hyperlinks and plus, there's already a documented official clearnet site of Deutsche Welle. The request is  withdrawn by me (though I could add it after the comment of @Beetstra but anyway), since I can also reference the Onion link in the page of Deutsche Welle without creating hyperlinks as far as I understood. Ahmetlii (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahmetlii, what you think to do is close to blacklist evasion, and you are anyway still bound by my comment: we list only one official website with very few exceptions (and this is not one of those). Dirk Beetstra T C 04:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra okay, thanks. Ahmetlii (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this not a similar case the Facebook one? Clearnet address is widely known, but {{Onion Official site}} is used to link to Facebookcorewwwi.onion (wow, it even has its own article!). I think it is useful to show that a prominent news web site also uses Onion service (not as a primary URL)...  « Saper // @talk »  12:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Saper, No, the facebook .onion is notable in itself next to the facebook itself, and there the article needs the official website for the subject. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking to unblock census2011.co

    The official website of census of India 2011 is blocked on wikipedia. Adding information is blocked due to its reference. Please unblock it. Khalidwarrior (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not an official website. Official websites of India end in '.gov.in', for example https://censusindia.gov.in/2011-Common/CensusData2011.html - MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    But there are thousand of pages in wikipedia,in which reference is given or the site is census2011.co in demographic section. For example- Patna page. In it also demographic page reference is the same page and and many other pages also. Check yourself. Please take note. Khalidwarrior (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    In patna page, in demographic, in the information of literacy rate the same site reference is given. I am also demanding to give reference to that same site. Khalidwarrior (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    You're right, there are lots of links to the site that predate the blacklisting. We should be updating them to point to official sources, not adding more. - MrOllie (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Khalidwarrior, I presume you mean the .co.in site? Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok now I understand. But that site is also very reliable on data. Maybe wikipedia will think again over it's decision of blacklisting it. Khalidwarrior (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Khalidwarrior, unlikely, just us the original data. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Khalidwarrior: no Declined. There is no such site as census2011.co. --Stifle (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking to unblock XPDC

    The article about XPDC band by me is blocked on Wikipedia. Adding information is blocked due to its reference. Please unblock it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Imran Razalli (talk • contribs)

    First of all, Wikipedia is not blacklisted. Second, you need to provide the direct links here. VAXIDICAE💉 20:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Imran Razalli: we need to know the domain/link you need, can you please read the instructions at the top of this page? --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to lack of reply. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Successful petitions as a matter of history and not advocacy

    Within the general principle of WP:NOTADVOCACY which I agree with in general, I think successful petitions can be added to the talk pages of the subject they had petitioned about, and possibly the article itself. This is for where the change has already occurred and accounts of it have been published in WP:INDEPENDENT media. Referencing it from article pages should be up to page editors consensus, IMHO, rather than a universal policy against. Obviously, this could be abused, but it could also be encyclopedic. Here is one case of this: the petition has been (mostly) successful, now its just a matter of history.

    This is relevant to talk page for The Promised Land (sculpture), and to my user page. The petition also asks the RACC to remove another Portland statue, Spanish–American_War_Soldier's_Monument, but the city has NOT done this (yet). Therefore the petition should not be added to that page, as that would violate the prohibition against WP:SOAPBOX. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jaredscribe: no Declined. It is an actively open petition, so even if it is not your intention, there is a 'risk' of soapboxing when this is allowed. As has been explained before, the fact that there is a petition on a subject is only worth mentioning when there are reports independent of the petition exist (independent, secondary, reliable sources). And if those independent sources exist, they carry more value than the primary source and make the primary source superfluous (especially if it is open and there is a risk of soapboxing). Wikipedia is not a news site, it is an encyclopedia writing about encyclopedic material.
    That it is up to editor's consensus is indeed true, that is why we here point people to WP:RSN to gauge whether a specific source is deemed a suitable source for a certain fact. That editor's consensus is here even more needed because you have a conflict of interest with this petition. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    YouTube link: Is it OK to use?

    Hello,
    I am here to ask if I could use a link to a YouTube video as a citation in the 2021 New Jersey gubernatorial election article. This video is an interview with Holly Schepisi on NJ Spotlight News (NJ PBS) where she's asked if she is interested in being Jack Ciattarelli's running mate, and I got a warning before saving my edit with it, so I did not include the link. That's why the citation for it is there but the link is missing. I wanted to ask if it was OK to use as a citation: I think it's important to include because it's a quote that's straight from the horse's mouth and NJ Spotlight News doesn't have an article about it (all they have is the YouTube video- if they did have an article with the quote from her, I would use that).
    Thanks,
    Cavanaughs (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Cavanaughs: no Declined, the expanded link http://youtube.com/watch?v=15cVSa27WfM&t=473 works perfectly. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking to unblock openthenews.com

    Writing an article on an Emarati multimillionaire Saeed Khalifa Moahmmed in Dubai and important information must be cited through this news article which has been verified. This would help include the information to the page. The article is talking about him as a successful entrepreneur and his early life and reliable data on him. Writing the article on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Saeed

    Faheemfahms (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Faheemfahms: no Declined, that is deemed a fake news site. I would suggest to first verify it's reliability on WP:RSN. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Asking to unblock camilacabello.lnk.to

    Writing an article on a promotional single released by Epic Records, must be cited through this smart link for separate music marketing of this promotional single. It's verified that the link camilacabello.lnk.to/InsideOut is not a URL shortener. This would help include the information to the page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Out_(Camila_Cabello_song)

    H9v9n9 (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @H9v9n9: no Declined. This is one of the links to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising", that the external links guideline designates as "normally to be avoided". If Camila Cabello's management team promoted this lnk.to page on a social media account, feel free to cite the social media post if its use in the article would be allowed under WP:PRIMARY. — Newslinger talk 05:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    TV Show update from creator on donation inactive Kickstarter page

    Trying to update https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT_Kats:_The_Radical_Squadron#Revival with information that came from the creator himself about the current status of the show. Reading the full update would be helpful for fans and I did not see this update anywhere else (not even the studio's own website). Donation portion has been inactive for 5+ years. 3/30 Update: Not sure why this was removed without an answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300b:7ab:2800:694f:8f3d:aa72:4737 (talk • contribs)

    @2603:300b:7ab:2800:694f:8f3d:aa72:4737: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist (not sure why this was missed - my apologies). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks!

    mschf.xyz

    mschf.xyz: 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 did the research and see that the consensus here is that xyz domain names contain too much spam to be freely allowed. This particular site is the home page for an art group; subject of the article MSCHF. If this could be whitelisted it would be appreciated. The link would be helpful for readers of the article, as the official website contains the most complete list of their work.--- Possibly (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, that's a weird website. Reminds me a little of Superbad (website). plus Added to whitelist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    armariuminterreta.site

    Looking through the blacklist, it seems like .site domain names contain too much spam webpages to be freely allowed. However, this particular site is a useful resource for Australian psephology; in particular I think the claim on the 2021 Western Australian state election page that the 2021 WA state election is "to date, the most decisive of any Australian state...election" would benefit from having a reference as to the previous most decisive Australian state elections. The site has compiled said elections (first link requested to be whitelisted). There might also be benefit to including some data on the demographics of the Western Australian state election to the page (as is commonplace for many other elections), if so that site has a demographic analysis which can be referenced (second link requested to be whitelisted).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arachnus64 (talk • contribs)

    @Arachnus64: we could allow the whole domain armariuminterreta.site if there is reason to believe that this is an exception for the general case of .site. Or is there unlikely something else on the domain that can be of use to us. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Oh if you could allow the domain armariuminterreta.site that would be great too, it generally seems to be a reliable psephology resource which references or provides access to their primary data (and apparently also does Australian state election forecasting, which could be useful when discussing election results the same way FiveThirtyEight is in the US). I was just requesting those links specifically because I thought this page was not for the purpose of requesting domains, and I just wanted to use the requested links for the purpose of providing references in the 2021 Western Australian state election page. If you could whitelist the whole domain that would be helpful instead of having to whitelist specific links for every Australian election. Do I need to resubmit an application here or somewhere else to whitelist the domain instead of those specific links? Arachnus64 (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Arachnus64: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Generally we only do specific links, but the tld-wide rules (.xyz, .site, .guru) are the, probably only, exceptions to that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Famous Birthdays about page

    This link from Famous Birthdays website, perhaps one enough webpages to be placed only the external link. But only this about page to be whitelisted. --Frontman830 (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    kitsunesden.xyz - specific page

    Link requested to be whitelisted: kitsunesden.xyz/Firearms/Sniper-Rifles/Harris_M-96.htm This source was copied from in a Wikipedia article investigated as part of a CCI. I would like a lifting so others may see where content was copied from/documentation purposes the page in question requires an RD1 redaction. Sennecaster (What now?) 02:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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


    General discussion

    Roblox

    Question: if the links to blog.roblox.com and developer.roblox.com would be fine in general, maybe the \broblox.com\b entry could be modified to something like \b[^\.]roblox.com\b to block the site (above all, its user pages) but not the subpages?  « Saper // @talk »  12:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Saper, or we could specifically whitelist both or one of them (which is sometimes wiser, your regex might allow the workaround of www.roblox.com). Not sure about the blog though, we do not tend to like blogs all that much, so maybe we want to keep that more under control. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a lot of media coverage and information... link tree allows me to have all this information available at once

    Please allow my link to this site to remain Donferquan (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Donferquan, please see WP:COI. Linktr.ee is a redirect site and landing page generator, we prefer to link to just the genuine homepage of subjects. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=1016432450"