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 08:37, 12 May 2020 (→‎pornhub.com/insights/belle-delphine: 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|956243198#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)


    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 of 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 bitcointalk link

    Moot: article has been deleted. Guy (help!) 10:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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]
    DeNoel, I refer the hon. gentleman to my earlier reply. If it's not covered in other sources then it's WP:UNDUE (our threshold is verifiability, not truth).
    Surely this is discussed at least in the primary source, the company's own website? Guy (help!) 10:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've accepted that, but I'm still confused over the purpose of having a Whitelist Interface page for requests at all. "Undue" just seems to contradict the entire purpose of the Interface page. I had expected in reply that if absolutely no other source is available, the CBR link can be used only if accompanied with {{Better source}} template and replaced when one is found. I was waiting for that reply; I will renew the research.
    Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Northerntransmissions.com

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: northerntransmissions.com/interview-with-molly-rankin-from-alvvays/

    Utilizing this website as a reference in the article for the song "Archie, Marry Me". Northern Transmissions appears to be an entirely worthwhile source for music reviews/interviews, not unlike The A.V. Club or similar sites. Not sure why it is blacklisted, though perhaps others can shed some light. Thanks. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hindupad

    The page Jyotirmayananda Saraswati needs more sources and other biographical information. Hindupad came up as a blacklisted site for some strange reason, so perhaps either the whole domain, or a specific page should be whitelisted for the purpose of clarity within the article: Link requested to be whitelisted: hindupad.com/jyotirmayananda/ 

    Eternal Father (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Eternal Father, The article needs more reliable sources. Hindupad is blacklisted due to spamming but is also unreliable (e.g. very pro astrology). Guy (help!) 10:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    globalresearch.ca/articles/MUG109A.html

    This is a primary source referenced by a scholar which was cited previously in the article Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, but the reference was removed. Unfortunately the document is only published on that site, but the document is genuine and relevant to the article. The citation was included to facilitate research by giving readers easy access to the primary source in question. Uglemat (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Uglemat, see WP:RSP: even without blacklisting, that site is considered generally unreliable. Guy (help!) 10:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, I agree, but I know what I'm doing. I even used archive.org when I referenced it (as you can see from this edit) because I didn't trust the site. I was including the same source document as the scholar (Barrie Collins) was basing himself on in his book. If the site is problematic, then not referencing the source only makes it more difficult for the reader to know that Collins is basing himself on a shady source. Uglemat (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Uglemat, then you need a third-party source that identifies him as using a shady source. Or maybe the entire thing is undue and needs to go. Guy (help!) 11:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, The article in questions concerns a highly controversial topic where there are two radically opposing views. What is "shady" or not depends entirely on whom you ask, and ultimately depends on who is "right", which most people think is an open question. The best we can do in such a case is to include both points of view faithfully. The declaration by Jean-Pierre Mugabe is highly relevant and important information, and should definitely be included. I don't think the source is shady; the allegation of Mugabe (that RPF shot down the plane) is in fact what most reputable Rwanda scholars now believe, including André Guichaoua, Filip Reyntjens and Scott Straus. Uglemat (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG, I would like to (re)emphasize that I did not really cite Mugabe as a source, I only provided a link to this important source document for convenience, which I have also done for many other documents for the article in question. The actual source is Collins' book. The book is well-regarded, as you can see in this article on the current state of research on Rwanda (https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/rwanda-state-research). In the discussion which lead this site to be blacklisted, one of the editors wrote "Maybe used only as WP:PRIMARY when its WP:DUE together with secondary WP:RS". That is exactly my judgment. There have been raised no concerns about DUE or RS on the talk page; if you have such concerns, I can address them. Uglemat (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Uglemat, so you want a whitelist exception to a spammed and unreliable site for a convenience link to a non-authoritative copy of a primary source where the site has an obvious agenda? I don't see how that's a good idea. I really don't. Guy (help!) 09:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Uglemat, since I originally removed the citation in August 2019, I should respond here. From the Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira article, the article content in question is reproduced below:

    One of the three whistleblowers was Jean-Pierre Mugabe,[1] who issued a declaration on the shootdown in April 2000.[citation needed]

    References

    1. ^ Collins, Barrie (2014). Rwanda 1994: The Myth of the Akazu Genocide Conspiracy and its Consequences. Springer. p. 24. ISBN 1137022329.

    The Collins book contains more than enough information on page 23 to support the entire text, and I've adjusted the citation in the article to reflect this.

    Using globalresearch.ca as a copy of a primary source is not actually needed because Mugabe did not publish the declaration through the Centre for Research on Globalization or globalresearch.ca. Mugabe published it through the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) in April 2000, and globalresearch.ca then republished it in September 2001. I found an April 2000 republication of the same declaration in AllAfrica, a source indexed in the trustworthy Gale General OneFile, and I've cited it into the article. — Newslinger talk 09:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Newslinger, I wrongly assumed that ISSA was an old name for CRG. Too bad AllAfrica is not open access, but that's ok. You can close this case now; thanks for solving the problem!! Uglemat (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem! — Newslinger talk 10:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Three specific MoneySavingExpert articles

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2018/11/owners-of-topcashback-and-quidco-reach-merger-deal/
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2018/11/competition-watchdog-launches-investigation-into-quidco-and-topc/
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/03/owners-of-topcashback-and-quidco-abandon-merger-plans/

    Would like to add these links as citations to TopCashback, or else to Cashback website if the former page gets merged into the latter as an outcome of this AfD. They seem to provide the most detailed coverage available of the proposed merger, the investigation and the abandonment of the plans, respectively. The pages are in the "news" section of the site, and don't appear to be sponsored (it's unclear who would be sponsoring any of them, since none of the pages is promotional in any way). YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    One specific DocDroid.net link

    We cannot link to this as it's a copyright violation Guy (help!) 14:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    After working on the Timeline for asexual history, I had to enlist some help on finding any link for the chapter "The Sexually Oppressed" by Myra Johnson for the book "Asexual and Autoerotic Women: Two Invisible Groups" published by Harvey L. and Jean S. Gochros in 1977. After 2 hours of Google search, I came up empty. Nothing. After asking on Twitter, someone "scanned" the chapter I needed with their phone (using an app that does that) and uploaded it to the DocDroid at the above link. Now, I am not asking for the entire site to be unblacklisted, just that link. That's all I am requesting.

    There isn't another version out there from the mountain of online sources because I have looked. Though if you all want to give it a shot, feel free. :) If you all find a link I can use for that chapter, pages 96 to 107, I'll be happy to use it. But for right now, this is it. It's all I'm asking. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:58 on April 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

    @Neutralhomer: a scan of a book from 1977 uploaded on a website that is blacklisted because .. wait for it .. it is all copyright violations on there? That reference is perfectly fine without the direct link to the material, it is available in many libraries (https://www.worldcat.org/title/sexually-oppressed/oclc/2543043), google (https://books.google.com.sa/books?vid=ISBN0809619156&redir_esc=y&hl=en). As long as the bibliograhic information is as complete as possible (include the ISBN 0809619156) and people can find it in their nearest library. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Did you just link me a list of libraries, which have been ordered closed, due to the pandemic? I mean....really? Did you also say the worlds "people can find it in their nearest library"?
    I didn't think it needed saying, but that was the added benefit of actually having a copy of that particular chapter (which your links didn't provide). The benefit of having an actual copy was so that no one would have to actually risk their lives to go to a building that isn't open (and probably won't be for awhile) and look at a book, that they don't (and can't) have to look at, because we have a copy of that chapter right here.
    On top of that, I can find no information regarding "Association Press" outside of the YMCA (which I doubt is the same), so I am having trouble believing that the copyright is still in effect for a company I can't even tell even exists. Again, I would need a scan of that part of that book to determine that and I'm not risking my life for that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:09 on April 20, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    @Neutralhomer: no Declined. Material does not have to be online to be used as a reference, yes, I know, it makes it utterly inconvenient that you have to actually go outside (which, I also know, is now also not possible), and take the book in your hands, but that is not a reason to willfully violate copyrights. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and note that copyright is with the writers, and up to 50-100 years after they die. —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have started an AN Discussion into Beetstra here into his responses above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:13 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
    • no Declined as a violation of the copyright policy, section WP:LINKVIO. Link removed URL redacted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      (I've mixed up "(hyper)link" and "URL" there. I think we should keep it removed from the request, in the spirit of the policy, to prevent it from being copied and preserved in the archives of this talk page.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    docdroid / OpalRaptor

    Sockpuppet of Lapitavenator blocked. Guy (help!) 10:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I just want this specific link on docdroid.net to be whitelisted please (its a link to a book i have written about mesozoic cuba). i need it for the article about the extinct turtle Notoemys.OpalRaptor (please) 15:29, 24 April 2020 (GMT)

    no Declined. I'm really sorry, but this material is not in any way a reliable source to be using on Wikipedia. Additionally, you seem to be copying images in your book in a way that violates the copyrights of the image creators; you really want to correct that. Kuru (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tatelumps: pile on no Declined. Use a reference to the original, there is no need for a convenience copy with the risk of it being a copyvio. See WP:LINKVIO. Also, maimed the link that was originally requested per said policy. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    casino.guru

    WP:SPA blocked. Guy (help!) 09:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Hi! I wanted to know if these pages of casino.guru website can be whitelisted. I wanted to use valuable info out of it and I couldn't because it's blacklisted so I reached out to talk: spam blacklist and they sent me here. I think this site is not spammy, has valuable information for people in their guide. I actually wanted to add information to the roulette page,blackjak and slot machines in Wikipedia, but it was not possible. It's only in spam list because every site including guru in it is automatically banned. Do you think it would be possible to whitelist it due to the fact it's really useful for adding more information (for people to use) to Wikipedia? Thank you for your response.JohnyH9 (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @JohnyH9: no Declined, not a reliable source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    One specific article of mejorcasino.xyz

    Another sock blocked. Guy (help!) 19:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I was going to add in the spanish wikipedia article https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conteo_de_cartas about a card counting method called AS/CINCO (ACE/FIVE in spanish) but sadly the only resource in spanish of such method is the following one https://mejorcasino . xyz/blackjack-3-metodos-infalibles-para-el-blackjack-online/ and is blocked because of a URL called casino . xyz Hope anyone could help me with that. --777bratan777 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's the only source, you need to find another one. Also, this request page is for English Wikipedia, not es wiki. Praxidicae (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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]

    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]

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

    bitcointalk.org

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=172991.msg1801451#msg1801451
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=919116.msg10096563
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306
    • Link requested to be whitelisted: bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93848.msg1037745#msg1037745

    There are six whitelisted links to the crypto forum bitcointalk. This is not a reliable source, usage has been on a WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:SPS basis. The above five are unused and should be removed from the whitelist.

    There is one remaining, apparently legitimate use:

    Any objections to me removing them? Guy (help!) 10:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=956243198"