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 13:07, 28 February 2017 (→‎Volpaia.info: 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|767874329#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)


    ratatype.com

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: ratatype.com

    ratatype.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 was wondering if the following link may be unblocked. We wrote a pages about education site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Ratatype.com/sandbox

    You can check our site it is normal and help people to teach how to type. And this articl normal with out block. We have no spam. We can open our statistic from our Google Analytics account and you can check all sources. What we need to do if we want write article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Ratatype.com/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnaSivolob (talk • contribs)

    Note that this was declined a couple of months ago, see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2016/11#Ratatype.com. - MrOllie (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied. We do not consider requests from website owners. A request may potentially be considered from a trusted, high-volume editor who cites an actual article in which they propose to cite the site. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If this article is approved and moved to mainspace, then one could consider to whitelist an about page or index.hmt, per /Common requests. However, as the draft is currently, I do not think that this will move to mainspace without a serious overhaul. Per Stifle, no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    @Beetstra:, :@Stifle:

    Sorry, but I don’t agree. Ratatype is FREE online typing tutor! And it helps people to learn touch typing and save their time on typing. I think people need now about useful free resources like Ratatype. As for links about Ratatype:

    http://www.wikihow.com/Type-Faster, http://god-of-typing.webnode.com/news/how-to-improve-typing-speed-online/, https://www.livechatinc.com/blog/improve-communication-skills/ — in this article (in section Sources and Citations) they use our research and page http://www.ratatype/learn/ https://www.xerox.de/de-de/small-business-solutions/einblicke/druckprozess — use Ratatype as one of the sources https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/give-your-thumbs-a-rest-you-ll-soon-be-texting-with-your-voice — use our research and article http://www.ratatype/learn/average-typing-speed/ https://medium.com/nanowrimo/the-three-big-excuses-why-you-don-t-write-145dcde9aaf1#.rtzgo320m — they use our research and article http://www.ratatype/learn/average-typing-speed/ http://www.lifehack.org/353421/12-super-productivity-secrets-every-entrepreneur-must-know — they write about Ratatype as one of the touch typing resources Also, you can see links to Ratatype.com on Wikipedia in different languages: Ru https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%B1%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5:%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BA_%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B6%D1%91%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2

    EN 

    https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%B5rmistik

    HY https://hy.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D5%8F%D5%A1%D5%BD%D5%A8_%D5%B4%D5%A1%D5%BF%D5%B8%D5%BE_%D5%BF%D5%BA%D5%A5%D5%AC%D5%B8%D6%82_%D5%B0%D5%B4%D5%BF%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%A9%D5%B5%D5%B8%D6%82%D5%B6 In https://ln.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob%C9%9Bti-ekemb%C3%A9

    So? We are not a vehicle for promotion. Do that somewhere else. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Parliamentary Petitions

    Perfectly relevant for the Commonwealth of Britain Bill and it's prominence even recently. Wh1ter0se (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)wh1ter0se wh1terose[reply]

    Why? The url actually just says that there was already a petition. What is the prominence of the petition, and are there not other suitable references to the petition? How does this link help the prominence of the subject matter? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wh1ter0se: primary references to petitions are hardly ever needed - if they are of importance they need to be properly discussed in independent, secondary sources. That makes the necessity of the primary source nearly zero. If no discussions in independent secondary sources exist, then generally the petition is not relevant to be mentioned on Wikipedia at all. It appears that, at the moment, there are no secondary sources on the mentioning of a petition in the document. Do those sources exist? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: alright; sorry. am new, will use secondary sources. --wh1ter0se wh1ter0se 18:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Just Jared

    A comprehensive interview with the subject in question -- Avan Jogia -- is present within the requested link above. Currently, the content of the interview (content which is unavailable in other sources) is used within the Avan Jogia Wikipedia article, however the citation is not externally linked to the source in question -- preventing further reading of the subject's interview.

    Further, I'm not asking that the whole site be exempt from the spam blacklist, as I do understand it typically is spammy -- however, I don't believe this interview in question is spam, but rather useful content. Best, —MelbourneStar☆talk 05:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @MelbourneStar: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    maltagenealogy.com

    The below link contains information about the relationships of the Mifsud Bonnici family in Malta. It would be an important citation for three articles: Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici and Carm Mifsud Bonnici, all of whom held public posts in Malta (President, Prime Minister and Minister for Justice and Home Affairs respectively). This website would be needed to justify the claim that all three are related. At first glance the content is not of a heinous nature, though I'm not sure if it hides any malware, but I'll leave that to the experts.

    Link requested to be whitelisted: maltagenealogy.com/libro%20d'Oro/mifsudbonici.html

    I thank you for your consideration.

    Tsum60 (talk) 13:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem in the past was heavy spamming (unsolicited addition of links) by sockpuppets, see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2009#maltagenealogy.com_and_saidvassallo.com. I am considering whether we could remove the whole domain and give it a go .. 6 years tends to be quite long for sockpuppets (it is not for spammers).
    @Tsum60: since you are heavily editing in Malta-related subjects and a long-term editor here, can you comment on the 'uniqueness' of the information in this specific link? Are there other sources that can cover this? And how is that for the rest of the site (other documents on maltagenealogy.com)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Thank you for your acknowledgement. To give you a bit of background, the Mifsud Bonnici family is a prestigious and notable family in Malta, long being associated with the Nationalist Party (Malta), so for Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici to run for the opposite Labour Party (Malta) was a bit of a taboo. It was not something that was talked about freely - in a sense he was the black sheep of the family. Still to this very day, while virtually everyone knows that they are one and the same, you don't find too many sources. However this website lists all the genealogy of the family. After filing the above request I kept researching for another source, and I have found a brief mention in an unrelated article about art, so it is not as detailed as this.
    The website in general actually provides interesting information about the movements of Maltese Nobility and population in general in the Early Modern times. It also provides genealogy of Maltese politicians, which may become useful for Wikipedia. While I don't know anything about it's sources, one can say that the information provided is quite extensive.
    Thus I suggest that this particular domain is given a go, but on it's own for now to avoid sockpuppets.
    Thank you!
    Tsum60 (talk) 15:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tsum60: this is plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, let's see if we get more requests. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: sorry to bother you but have you added it? It still gives me the blacklist notice... Thanks!
    Tsum60 (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    PV Magazine article about Goodwe introducing their products with an Earth Fault Alarm to Australia

    I proposed an article request for Goodwe. One of the sources for the article was in the PV Magazine [www.pv-magazine.com/press-releases/goodwe-solar-inverter-introduces-their-new-products-with-earth-fault-alarm-to-australia_10008210/ | GoodWe Solar Inverter introduces their new products with Earth Fault Alarm to Australia] article. I'm assuming that the site is blacklisted because it is a commercial website with advertising, and is therefore not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I'm assuming that this request to whitelist the page will be denied, but I am nevertheless double-checking for confirmation. The article is still a draft. The Earth Fault alarm article may be used as a citation as an indication of Goodwe's participation in the Australian market.

    --Jray310 (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I will check for consensus on whether this link is reliable. Jray310 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a press release - it's not going to help for demonstrating notability and it's a very good source at all. See WP:SELFPUB. Ravensfire (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This site was blacklisted because it was heavily spammed, and generally does not contain any unique information (there are better alternatives, often). Can you tell us why this reference is needed - is this document containing really something that cannot be found elsewhere? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    As Ravensfire notes, the article is a press release. The original article is actually from Goodwe, here, as it is thus not independent, it is not a good source (not a neutral point of view, conflict of interest). Alas, it seems quite difficult to find independent, reliable, neutral sources for Goodwe, so perhaps they are not very noteworthy! Jray310 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I tried to check on the reliable sources noticeboard to see if the link is reliable, but I can't seem to include the link as the domain is blacklisted. Do I need to use a Link requested to be whitelisted: example.com tag on that noticeboard?

    "the article is a press release. The original article is actually from Goodwe, here, as it is thus not independent," .. there is nothing wrong with using a primary source for primary information. That a separate source is copying the information released by the company themselves does not turn this in a secondary source that is supposed to be more reliable .. We are not prohibited to use primary sources, articles should not be based on primary sources alone. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jray310: no Declined, alternative source provided. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Waxman Energy and Goodwe on PV Magazine

    I'm assuming that this page is also too promotional, thus violating the policies for neutral point of view, conflict of interest and reliability of sources?

    It seems difficult to demonstrate that Goodwe is notable enough to write a Wikipedia article about! Jray310 (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jray310: As above, this is a press release regurgitating what a company is saying about themselves. Can you provide us with the link to the waxman energy comment. Is it http://www.waxmantraining.co.uk/goodwe-solar-pv-battery-storage-training/? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Beetstra: Yes that looks close enough to the PV Magazine press release, there is no other article that comes up for searching for Goodwe on the Waxman Energy website that is closer. Again, the original source is not neutral, so that too would not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia (in addition to the PV Magazine press release, which is not unique). Sorry to have wasted your time! I'm fairly new to editing on Wikipedia—it's a learning process.--Jray310 (talk) 06:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    So they convey the same information, they both are practically primary sources. Then the direct source is better. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed @Beetstra:, although, the direct source, while better, seems to also not be suitable as a source, as it is biased. Jray310 (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but the press release is not more neutral. 'they say on their website that their grass is greener than that of the neighbours' .. if your statement in the document is that Waxman has announced that they are using the Goodwe solar pv battery storage training, then you should refer that to the Waxman announcement. There is no need to refer to a press release that basically says that Waxman announced that ... There is nothing wrong with primary sourcing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    ewedictionary.com

    An important resource for Ewe language speakers, learners, teachers and enthusiasts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.135.115 (talk) (talk) 12:58, February 2, 2017

    note - formatted request and signed for ip, also note that site is blocked on meta for spamming. Ravensfire (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @78.49.135.115: no Declined, you have not specified which page is improved in which way. Note that this was plainly spammed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.ewedictionary.com The video on the main page gives an impression of the dictionary. This is an improvement on the previous version of the website.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.155.87 (talk • contribs)
    @89.204.155.87: You did not answer the question, on which page do you think that this is an improvement? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous message => "The video on the MAIN PAGE gives an impression of the dictionary. This is an improvement on the previous version of the website"....

    "For information, see Ewe language." => Which information are you referring to? @Anthony Appleyard.

    NB: about 70% of the external links (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewe_language#External_links) on the site you are referring to, i.e Ewe language, are dead links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.155.87 (talk • contribs)

    @89.204.155.87: you want to link to the video so you can show how Ewe sounds, not to the page of the dictionary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqFPxRDW6vI will do. And in your initial posts you did not say that you needed the link for Ewe language. Linking to the dictionary is not necessary, we are talking about the language, not about the dictionary. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The aim of the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqFPxRDW6vI) is not to show how ewe sounds. It's a teaser for the dictionary itself.

    @89.204.155.87: It's a reaser for the dictionary itself? There is no need to link to the dictionary, the page is about the language, not about the dictionary. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The same applies to some of the links that are active under the [External links] section of the page. The following link => My First Gbe Dictionary is also "not about the language", but rather about on a "dictionary". Why does it not get blacklisted?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.130.163 (talk • contribs)

    @77.182.130.163: because it did not get spammed like ewedictionary. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    petitions.whitehouse.gov/about

    The We the People article is about the U.S. Government's official White House petitioning website. Conventionally, a direct link to a website homepage would be provided in the article, however, the entire domain is blacklisted as a petitioning site. In lieu of only the homepage somehow being whitelisted, the About page would serve as a logical link for readers to get more information and context on the site. --Mindfrieze (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mindfrieze: Wow, we didn't do this one already .. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    mixcloud.com/zevbrenner/talkline-with-zev-brenner-with-rabbi-yosef-mizrachi-on-holocaust-denial/

    I would like to use this link in a reference citation for the Yosef Mizrachi article. It is a radio show, Talkline, episode (hosted and uploaded by Zev Brenner), which is a January 9, 2016 interview with Rabbi Yosef Mizrachi, who is the subject of the article. Beginning 59 minutes and 54 seconds in to the episode (until around 61 minutes in), the interviewer asks him about his rabbinical ordination, and Mizrachi proceeds to say what ordination and certification he does and does not have. I would like to reference this and say in the article that in the interview he says he does not have standard rabbinical ordination to be a synagogue rabbi but that he says he has equivalent certification from Eliyahu Ben Haim. This information is relevant to the article, which identifies him as a rabbi, but does not have any details on this point. I understand that this is a primary source, but I would try to avoid using it beyond what I have said here, and there does not appear to be any alternative source I can find on this issue (other than an antagonistic blog post that anyway only references the same interview). Althepal (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Althepal: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    themoviedb.org

    Where: Wanting to add it to the EL on the main WP article page: The Movie Database.

    Reason: the article page should contain the primary domain name in its EL section. And apparently this is where one has to ask... see blacklist discussion, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#themoviedb.org_.2F_The_Movie_Database

    Jimthing (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jimthing: 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 18:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    themoviedb.org/about --Jimthing (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Link requested to be whitelisted: themoviedb.org/about
    I will throw in your reference as well, which you use in the article:
    Link requested to be whitelisted: blog.themoviedb.org/a-great-disturbance-in-the-force-f6d38557439d
    So you save us both time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jimthing: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's a start. Thanks. --Jimthing (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Volpaia.info

    This is a website about a village/winery, but the page at http://www.volpaia.info/della_volpaia.htm has useful information which I hoped to add as a reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girolamo_della_Volpaia, which is currently being discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Girolamo_della_Volpaia. I've commented out the ref for now, to be able to save the rest of my edit, but would like to include it.

    -- PamD 12:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @PamD: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=767874329"