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 13:50, 19 September 2019 (→‎open.online: 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|916557823#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)


    open.online

    Reasons

    This website is an Italian on-line daily newspaper founded on last December by Enrico Mentana, current anchorman of the Italian television channel La7. Here's a brief summary in Italian of the website, made by ANSA, with the link to the website reported as well in the article.

    I already made a request for this site months ago.

    I request one link that will be used on the 2019 Democratic Party (Italy) leadership election.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Broncoviz (talk • contribs) 09:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Linking to a similar discussion on the same website in the Spam-blacklist talk page. Beetstra suggested whitelisting the whole domain 'open.online'. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to revive this thread, since I think it's become clear that the whole website should be whitelisted. See also discussions in the Spam-blacklist talk page and its archive. Thanks. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ritchie92 and Broncoviz: As per discussion both here and on the spam blacklist, this is better whitelisted as the whole domain (it cannot be unlisted, as it is the TLD which is, and should be, blacklisted). plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Breibart again

    A wikifriend pointed out that wikipedia, and me in particular, were mentioned in a Breitbart article recently and I wanted to post a link to it on my user page, sort of like a Barn Star, but different. The article is at www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/07/18/wikipedia-editors-protect-antifa-by-censoring-andy-ngo-assault-ice-attack/. Can you help me? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Need to cite blacklisted Mylife.com pages in the article about MyLife

    I agree that Mylife.com earned its place on the unreliable source blacklist. However, we need to be able to cite pages on the wretched Mylife.com website in the article about MyLife to show what the site says about itself. In the article's lede, I revised and added some citations to the site's FAQ at www.mylife.com/help. Although that page was already cited about 3 times, when I tried to save my edits, I got the blacklist block error page. As a temporary workaround, I changed the cite web templates to cite book, commented out the url and access-date parameters, and changed 2 other parameters to make the cite book citations display correctly. However, we need to use cite web and link to the FAQ page. We may also need to cite and link to other Mylife.com pages in the article. My edit diff: [1]—Finell 06:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @Finell: Could you please post the link here with removal of the 'https://'? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: This is the FAQ page: Link requested to be whitelisted: mylife.com/help. We might also need to link to other pages on the website. Could you whitelist, ONLY for the MyLife article, all of Link requested to be whitelisted: mylife.com website, including all sub-pages? Thank you for your help.—Finell 17:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: I should have read the instructions more closely before posting my request. I apologize.—Finell 17:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Finell, all of mylife would be a delisting. I don’t think that will happen. —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra:I only meant to be able to cite other pages of Mylife.com in the MyLife article, not as source in other Wikipedia articles. According to the Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, an otherwise unreliable source may be used as a source of information about the source itself, subject to five enumerated conditions.—Finell 18:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Excessive self-sourcing is a plague. If something is not discussed by an independent third party, it's not significant and should be excluded. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    A link at docdroid.net

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.docdroid.net/file/download/qi3rMyT/eskilstuna-united-grafisk-manual-2015-v3-lowres-1.pdf

    This is my source for File:Eskilstuna United DFF logo.svg and if I can't submit the link, the file would be without a source.

    docdroid.net: 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

    Thanks!Jonteemil (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonteemil, are you serious, you got that from there? A massively copyright violating site instead of from, uhm, I don’t know, the official website? —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra Well, half yes, half no. I did get the LINK from the official website, but the logo itself I got from the docdroid page which the link lead to.Jonteemil (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonteemil, why not take the image from the official page. I can just download it from their main page. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, Because the logo at the official website isn’t vector.Jonteemil (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jonteemil, too bad, but I’ll leave it for an admin to decide. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @JzG: What do you think? You who are an admin.Jonteemil (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done You can source the file without the protocol (like it is at the top of the section). — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @JJMC89: What section?Jonteemil (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This one. The very first line. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Two links to articles at CBR

    While CBRonline.com is blacklisted (IIRC for some spam-like action many years ago), the site contains a number of articles which describe events in the history of computing which are difficult or impossible to find documented in other news portals. Therefore, over the years, I have asked for some specific links to be whitelisted. Now, I've run into two more of such links which I hereby request to be whitelisted:

    The first link was already used in the Caldera OpenLinux article as an archived link, and it has been recently removed because it was found to refer to cbronline.com leaving the reference in an undesirable state. Nevertheless, it talks about historically important projects Novell Corsair and Exposé and the Novell DOS 7 product and documents a certain snapshot of "external knowledge" about the projects at this time which I could not find elsewhere. This is historically important.

    The second link is used in the FlexOS article as a fragmented text-only link. The article contains interesting infos about Digital Research, GEM and FlexOS, which support statements in our article.

    Since there is nothing spammish in these links, I'd like to have them whitelisted. We are not doing our readers a service with providing fragmented or no references instead of proper refs with functioning links so they can check the sources themselves easily. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    In general, if there's only one source, then it's not significant. Guy (help!) 07:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia aiming at properly documenting and presenting the knowledge of the world, not some mainstream outlet. There are a lot of things which are encyclopedically relevant and historically important to document, and for which we now can be happy to find at least one surviving source. Corsair and Expose are important pieces in the history of Novell and Caldera, and also of Linux.
    We are not discussing the notability of an article, for which we, in general, aim for more than one RS. We are discussing references backing up bits of information in an article, for which we do not need multiple sources in order for things to become relevant. Actually, we are not even discussing the two references given above per se, because per WP:RS they are RS as well (the board for these kind of discussions would be the corresponding article talk pages, anyway). What we are discussing is if we can provide functioning links to an online source of these articles or have to leave the references without those links. Following the fundamental idea of the web, providing links is the norm, if they are available. However, in this particular case, the links belong to a domain, which was blacklisted by us (IIRC because they planted CBROnline links into many Wikipedia articles in some spam-like fashion, although right now I can't remember if it was ever properly determined if they really did it with bad or good intentions). However, the possibly bad behaviour of a site owner does not invalidate individual articles on his site.
    What we need to do now is determine if providing the links can be dangerous for our readers in any way (f.e. if they would point to some malware site) or if, by whitelisting them, someone is trying to circumvent the general cbronline blacklisting. Both scenarios can be ruled out here, so I don't see a valid reason for why these two links should not be whitelisted.
    We are not doing our readers a service leaving them hunting for those links via Google etc. if we can readily provide the links in the reference. It's not only about convenience, it is also about quality assurance, because by providing the live link, we make it easier for readers to check that the reference supports some information in our article. (And by even providing an archived link, as in one of the references, if a malicious site owner would ever decide to turn his site into some malware site in the future this could not negatively affect our readers.)
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are this: Wrong. Guy (help!) 23:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    One petition from the Change.org

    Requesting to whitelist this single URL, which will appear on the pages of LGBT-free zone and LGBT rights in Poland regarding the situation of the LGBTQ+ community in Poland. The petition is an appeal of lay faithful to the bishops and was a part of the disccusion on this topic.

    Link requested to be whitelisted: change.org/p/lgbt-odezwa-wiernych-%C5%9Bwieckich-do-duchownych-w-sprawie-eskalacji-konfliktu-z-osobami-lgbt/u/24947021

    JackGrimm1504 (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Jackgrimm1504, we only list petitions when sources which are both independent and reliable have reported about them. Though there are some (extremely rare) exceptions, there is hardly ever reason to link directly to a petition (and especially open petitions). Mentioning petitions needs independent (secondary) reliable sources which removes the need of the primary sourcing, and linking to the primary source, especially when it is an open petition, also allows to use the link for soapboxing (including changing of text to facilitate that). Dirk Beetstra T C 09:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Two links from IQPC

    Requesting to white list two URLs, which contain details about an event that the CEO of Tokigames attended, and I would like to reference these links. The URLs link to the Esports Asia Summit, which was an event that occurred from the 28 - 29th of May, 2019 in Singapore. I understand that iqpc has been heavily spammed in the past, and as a result I wish to whitelist only these links. Thank you for any help. --Zansher (User talk:Zansher)

    mangauk.com (second request)

    Reasons

    The article "Time loop" uses the blog post "Edge of Tomorrow, and Kill Is All You Need" as a reference, and I'd like to use the link to complete the reference, since, unlike the books cited in the article, the post does not exist offline. The domain was blacklisted not because of content, but because at one point Wikipedia articles were spammed with it in edits. I requested this in July, but never received a response. —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:36, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    @DocWatson42: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=916557823"