MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2020/07

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Allowing link related to Japanese govt. policies

I propose that:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: news.newenergytimes.net/2015/08/24/japanese-government-will-fund-lenr-research-again/
be allowed.  It contains important news relevant to the cold fusion article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done stale. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My website should not be blocked

Hello,

I bought the domain listn.to one year ago, before that it was URL shortener. Now is a totally different website, with lots of unique and quality content. I wanted to contribute with a lot of information to few pages in Bulgarian and mention my website as source, but it is blocked. Can you please unblock it.

Thank you

 Not done stale. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Dead Link

I was updating Wikipedia Dead Link by posting new articles on that dead links. Whey these links are removed from Wikipedia. My site "[foxpbn.rocks foxpbnrocks]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramabeanz (talk • contribs) 00:09, March 4, 2019 (UTC)

@
Ravensfire (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]


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]

@Beetstra: Did I post this wrong? It seems to have been ignored and I don't know why. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Metaknowledge, "X writes at Breitbart, source, X writing at Breitbart" is a terrible idea. Just find a secondary source that identifies him as a Breitbart author. Guy (help!) 22:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: I don't see the problem, but so be it. Does his Twitter bio suffice? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Metaknowledge, you really don’t have a secondary source? Maybe it is then not woeth mentioning, no-one seems to care. Dirk Beetstra T C 02:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: I honestly don't know what kind of sources make you guys happy for a fact whose truth value isn't in dispute. There are secondary sources around like this book, but I'll be the first to admit it looks like a crappy source. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
undue weight. We don't want to say that someone writes for a far-right conspiracist website unless reliable independent secondary sources establish that this fact is significant. Guy (help!) 11:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@JzG: Political activities of actors are routinely included on their pages. Most actors don't write for notable political websites, so the fact that Graham does seems to pass that test, and make it worth a brief mention. I'm not sure why the fact that Breitbart is far-right and conspiracist is relevant to this dicussion, to be honest. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deprecated, and other seriously unreliable, sources are frequently not reliable sources about their own content. If it's a noteworthy fact, then there will be citation to a BLP-suitable source - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Metaknowledge:  Not done. --Stifle (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

www.tradedoubler.com/

The Tradedoubler article currently lists tradedoubler.com/en/about/ (space added to get around the filter) as the company's website, which is an overly specific URL to a sub-part of the corporate website. I was trying to change it to the top-level URL https:// www.tradedoubler.com/ (with HTTPS for good measure, space added to get around the filter) but ran into the spam filter. I understand why people must be prevented from spamming Wikipedia with their affiliate links, but it should be quite ok to link to the website of an affiliate-marketing company from the article about said company.

Linking to the top-level page without any affiliate codes should be of limited concern from a spam perspective. ehn (talk) 06:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ehn: per /Common requests#About, that is what we normally do: we link to an about-page or a full url (including an index.htm) of the index page. Top domain is often the reason why the sites were blacklisted, and also abusable in other ways. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: I see. This is, however, not what we normally do for other company articles. The link typically goes to the top-level web page, not an about page or something similar. It seems that we're compromising Wikipedia quality for technical reasons.
I understand some URLs are blacklisted because the content is controversial, offensive, obscene etc. But in the case of an affiliate marketing company, I presume it's because people try to insert their own affiliate links on Wikipedia to make money. In that case, linking to the corporate website with no affiliate codes should not create any problems. What are we trying to protect against here? ehn (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEANS
)
We link to the official website, even if it fails WP:EL, “to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself”. An about page just does that. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whitelisting the second-level domain will allow affiliate links to be added as well, because that is how the whitelist works. Is it ideal? No. Are we going to whitelist it? Also no.  Denied Stifle (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

theamericanreporter.com

Hello, There is an article published about an artist and I want to white list the link which is as followed:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: theamericanreporter.com/chit2ams-musical-success-is-the-result-of-his-love-for-hip-hop-hard-work-and-his-entrepreneurial-spirit/

this is for a draft named "chit2am" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.137.104 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes this a
    reliable source? Stifle (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]

no Declined due to lack of reply. --Stifle (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sci-hub.tw/alexandra

Not all the domain but only this page if possible. Erkin Alp Güney 05:35, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is Alexandra Elbakyan's official autobiography. Erkin Alp Güney 05:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Erkinalp9035: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --SmartSE (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mydramalist article on feng yu xi guan

1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

I am trying to add the above website as a source for the English name of the drama feng yu xi guan(风雨西关) that Chen Kun starred in 2005. I know that mydramalist is not the best of sites to cite as a source but in this case, it is the ONLY English language site available with information about the drama. So I request for this specific link to be whitelisted as a source.

2.Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

Chen_Kun

3.Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

Link requested to be whitelisted: mydramalist.com/16381-feng-yu-xi-guan

4.Please add a {{

LinkSummary
|example.org}}

mydramalist.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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

SoarThroughTheSky (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SoarThroughTheSky, it is preferred that sources are in English, but there is nothing wrong with sources in other languages. Is there sufficient sourcing in the other languages? Dirk Beetstra T C 17:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BeetstraThis webpage is a source for the English name of the drama. Another language source would not be able to serve that purpose. SoarThroughTheSky (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SoarThroughTheSky: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asianbeat article for article of Gokuraku Jodo

1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

I make a wikipedia article about the song name Gokuraku Jodo, and when I tried to search a backgound of how Garnidelia making the song and the dance video, I just found the link of that thing only on that site, which i also found the translation of the interview on the same site to but in different language that I used regullary. So I request the link to be whitelisted for the source of my article.

2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gokuraku_Jodo

3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

Link requested to be whitelisted: asianbeat.com/ja/feature/interview/43.html

4. Please add a {{

LinkSummary
|example.org}}

asianbeat.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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

Msonnyandrean (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Msonnyandrean: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:46, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Finally, it's worked. Thank you so much Msonnyandrean (talk 18:56, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

onlyfans.com for onlyfans article

1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted

It's the website of the company.

2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnlyFans

3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

{{WLRequestLink|onlyfans.com/}}

Gagarine (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gagarine: 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 14:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: is onlyfans.com/ considered a full url? That's the URL I need to add in the infobox. Gagarine (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gagarine, We need an about or full URL including index.htm. An about page does exactly what it is supposed to do. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gagarine, I suggest:
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: onlyfans.com/faq
Which is neutral and away from the mainpage. Dirk Beetstra T C 17:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gagarine and Beetstra: I would like to second the request to whitelist the OnlyFans FAQ page, as suggested by Beetstra above, both for the OnlyFans article itself and also so that I can add a source link to the logo that I just uploaded. —Deliriousgreen (talk) 11:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gagarine and Deliriousgreen: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist (though a working link is not needed for the file). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Beetstra, I have added the now-whitelisted FAQ link to both the article and the image description page (although I take your point that a working link is not needed there). —Deliriousgreen (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

abc.xyz

official website, needs to be whitelisted after blacklisting all of .xyz. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

xyz domains

These are official websites on the recently blacklisted XYZ domain. Guy (help!) 14:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Guy (help!) 14:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

elasticplayer.xyz

I ask that this site be whitelisted immediately and these links restored by JzG. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:18 on June 10, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
Moved from SBL. Neutralhomer, I tested six of them and not one of them worked. How do we verify that this is the stations' officially supported streaming platform? Belay that: it's linked fomr at least one website. No clue why it does not work for me, but whateves. Guy (help!) 14:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutralhomer: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist and removals rolled back. Thanks. --Guy (help!) 14:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. :) Thank you! - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:58 on June 10, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

quatuor.xyz

This is the official website for a documentary film about Olivier Messiaen's Quatuor pour la fin du temps; it was being used as an external link on both articles. gnu57 14:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genericusername57, OK, verified from https://zenviolence.com/quatuor - fixing now. Thanks. Guy (help!) 14:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Genericusername57: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, removals reverted. --Guy (help!) 14:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tinyurl.com

The top page was overridden after explicit advice not to link to the top domain (though this happened way before we instated the advice at /Common requests#The official homepage of the subject of a page). Whitelisting this per that advice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change.org

The link to change.org itself is still there, presumably it has not been revised after change.org got blacklisted. Using the /about per the advice at /Common requests#The official homepage of the subject of a page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Guy (help!) 16:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sahafat.xyz

I checked the "sahafat.xyz" links, they are image repository of the archive of sahafat.in, website of a print newspaper. The links in this case don't look like to be spam. Also, it is an official repository. The link to .xyz flows from main website, it is like, http://www.sahafat.in/index.html has a menu link to http://www.sahafat.in/archive_index.html, where, on selection of a date, archived newspaper is loaded in image format, the location of this image is at www.sahafat.xyz; so it seems to be legit. Also, there is no alternate of this archive available, if anyone has to quote articles from older version, then they need to add this link but that doesn't works and we are missing references. example links,

  1. http://www.sahafat.xyz/mumbai/May2020/31_05_2020/p-1-1.htm
  2. http://www.sahafat.xyz/lucknow/May2020/01_05_2020/p-1-1.htm
  • which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

Currently, it is regarding

Syed Jawad Naqvi
, but as it is one of the leading Urdu dailies of India, it definitely has implication on other articles.

  • specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

Link requested to be whitelisted: www.sahafat.xyz

--Fztcs

@Faizhaider: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra:Thanks for the quickest turnaround I have seen on WP in years. :) --Fztcs 20:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Faizhaider, a well explained request makes our life easier. Thank you! Dirk Beetstra T C 20:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

stamp-workshop.eu

This is a European academic/industry conference about the STAMP (System-Theoretic Accident Modelling Process) accident analysis methodology developed by Prof. Nancy Leveson. There is also a US workshop http://psas.scripts.mit.edu/home/stamp-workshops/ . I want to link the European workshop in the Nancy Leveson biography (Nancy Leveson#STAMP), or maybe in an eventual separate article about the STAMP metholodogy, or possibly in accident-related articles where STAMP was used to study the accident. I'd say whitelist the entire domain: it is a perfectly good site, blacklisted because of a Scunthorpe problem where anything with "shop.eu" in it is blocked. This is not a request for exceptional dispensation of a link that otherwise deserves to be blacklisted, but to undo that a legitimate site is blacklisted by accident. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, sorry for the delay, needed to see the records first. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no prob about the delay, this wasn't urgent. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serif

A book publisher. Specifically that page is their list of distributors for the citation of who their distributors are. From what I can tell COIBot caught some spam usage in 2012. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerodlycett: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Census of India on Jhinjhana

It's more or less a technical request, because otherwise Bender the Bot gets stuck in a loop at Jhinjhana. --bender235 (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bender235: no Declined, it is a scraper, it should be replaced by original/official data. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bender235, I've removed the link. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Equally fine by me. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Dakota Birds

I can't tell why these pages are blocked. www.sdakotabirds.com/species/maps/little_blue_heron_map.htm and www.sdakotabirds.com/species/maps/tricolored_heron_map.htm Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey.landis, possibly blacklisted due to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2012_Archive_Nov_1.5#6_years_of_Adsense_spamming. Maybe it is time to review that? Dirk Beetstra T C 20:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

breitbart.com/masthead

Neutral landing page as the official website for the Breitbart News article. — Newslinger talk 12:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. — Newslinger talk 12:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

infowars.com/contributors

Neutral landing page as the official website for the InfoWars article. — Newslinger talk 12:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. — Newslinger talk 12:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

change.org/p/city-of-lynn-speak-up

I'm requesting this specific petition be whitelisted, as the petition is needed for a citation of the petition's existence on the Lynn English High School page. The petition has not been covered in any external newspaper articles or websites that I have been able to find to cite in its stead, as it has primarily circulated on social media. There is currently no citation for the mention of the petition on this page and it needs one added, but without another document refencing the petition it is the only available source.

Lynnhistory (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC) :LynnHistory[reply]

@Lynnhistory: no Declined, if a petition has not been mentioned in any independent source, then Wikipedia should not report on it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited out the sentence of the petition, and deleted the revisions mentioning it. That sentence read to me as a serious violation of our
WP:BLP policy. —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

custom-writing.org

Tried to update the Citation article and found out that the whole website is blacklisted. It's a shame because I couldn't find another American Antiquity citation style guide on the web. This style's description is missing in the aforementioned article and I wanted to add it with proper referencing. DonnaANorton (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must be crazy if you think that an essay for hire site is ever going to be whitelisted...Praxidicae (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DonnaANorton: no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

breitbart.com

I want to include this specific page as a source in The Lincoln Project to show that both left and right wing media use the term "Never Trump" to describe The Lincoln Project. The Breitbart article covers the right-wing. Rolling Stone is the corresponding left-wing source. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

synthesis? If there is a source that draws this conclusion, use that instead. Otherwise it shouldn't be in the article. – bradv🍁 17:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Bradv, We've got two sources (there are plenty others, but these seemed representative of the political extremes) which use the term. How is that synthesis? Synthesis is when your conclusion hasn't been stated by the sources. In this case, both of the sources have directly used the term. Would you feel better about this if I wrote it as, "Both left and right wing media have labeled the Lincoln Project founders as Never Trumpers"? I'm fine with that, but it still needs the same citation. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ABOUTSELF, because it is commentary on a third party in an article that is unrelated to Breitbart News. How about the Washington Examiner (RSP entry) or The Washington Times (RSP entry), either of which would remove the need for a whitelist entry? — Newslinger talk 05:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Newslinger, The 2018 RFC concluded, It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary. That's exactly how I want to use it. I want to show that Brietbart's opinion is that TLP founders are Never Trumpers. I specifically want to illustrate Brietbart's opinion because they represent the far-right viewpoint. Neither of the two sources above do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without a reliable source mentioning Breitbart News's opinion, it would be
neutral point of view noticeboard if you disagree, and I'll continue the discussion there. — Newslinger talk 11:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:RSN#Citing breitbart.com for their "Never Trump" opinion -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Reliable source - The Hindu

Please remove "THE HINDU" website from blocklist Sai Krishna bonda (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SBL), and can you please read the instructions in the green box at the top of the page as it is currently totally unclear what site you mean. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

nextiva.com

Thanks. Rentrickan (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rentrickan: no Declined. nextiva.com/index.htm is whitelisted for that, per /Common requests. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra May I request to whitelist this url only: Link requested to be whitelisted: nextiva.com/company/leadership.html to use as the official website in its page? --Rentrickan (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rentrickan, why? We either link to a fully written out frontpage, or a neutral about page. This is absolutely not neutral. Dirk Beetstra T C 15:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra sir, you said nextiva.com/index.htm was whitelisted but I am unable to add it in the infobox? Rentrickan (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rentrickan, my mistake, it is https://nextiva.com/index.html (extra l ..). My apologies. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thank you very much. Rentrickan (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Library Genesis official link

For Library Genesis to function as the official link as per /Common requests (I could not find an about, this 'redirects' to the official website). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this one again, although the link works on the webpage, it does not work when you come from somewhere else. It has been replaced with another link now. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Library Genesis official link - references

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: libgen.me/about
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: libgen.lc/stat.php

Some (primary) references in the article Library Genesis. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Library Genesis official link - references 2

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Germaneplum (talk • contribs)

@Germaneplum: 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 18:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that does the same as the link above, they are just mirrors. Why would we whitelist it anyway. —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra:They aren't mirrors -- they're the two official URLs: gen.lib.rus.ec and libgen.is are official project servers, operated by the founding team. The two previous url's are for-profit, third-party servers. Neither official servers have 'about' pages, but the official forum "Siteindex and FAQ" indicate they're the only official URLs, the siteindex acts as the about page: https://forum.mhut.org/viewtopic.php?p=9000 But perhaps libgen.is/index.php can be used as the about page? Thank you for your help.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Germaneplum (talk • contribs)
@Germaneplum: we don’t need to link to all official servers of a website, one is enough. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: there are just 2, and they alternately go "down" fairly often. it's helpful to have them on record on a legitimate website like wikipedia, since a good portion of the world bans the URLs at the ISP level now, so people are often confused whether the site is down or whether it's blocked. Thanks for considering the request and for the original whitelist. Appreciated.

Library Genesis official link - root document

  • Regex requested to be whitelisted: \bgen\.lib\.rus\.ec\/index\.php\b

setlang.php does not work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lukeisback

In an interview with pornography reporter Luke Ford she said, "I think I'm the only one [from Bangladesh in porn]."

In the same interview Jazmin spoke of her entry into porn, "I've always wanted to be famous for something. I tried to sing but I suck at it. I tried to dance. I was kinda good. I did belly dancing professionally. I wanted to do something more. I was very shy and not thinking good about myself. One of my friends said I would be good at porn if I tried. I was freaked out the first time. Then I thought why not. I want to go with the flow. I just did my thing. I started doing nude modeling with High Society magazine. Then I started dancing for a couple of months. I got bored with it. I heard about Mark Spiegler from one of my friends. That he was an agent. I called him. The next thing I knew I was in porn."

She also said, "Porn taught me to do anal. That's why I am so amazed by it. It just looked so hard before, but when I got into the porn industry, it looked so easy", and "I don't like the way people degrade porn girls."

This happens to be the only extensive interview of Jazmin available through a Google search. It would be great to be able to use the link. Pornstars generally don't have much acceptable sources. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No response. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aditya Kabir, this was blacklisted as this was deemed to be an unreliable blog which should not be used on BLPs. If now your only source for the information that you want to add is on that unreliable blog how relevant to the article is it then? (By the way, your first sentence is already confirmed: there are 4 references for the statement that she was the first porn actress from Bangladesh). Dirk Beetstra T C 13:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. The subject has enough notability and RS verifiability to exist as a Wikipedia entry. But to expound on the subject, of which I actually know nothing beyond the sources, I would need sources to use. Even an SPS should be okay if I only quote it to illustrate what was published by it (hence not as a "fact" about the subject). Besides Luke Ford is a well reputed expert, reputed enough in the mainstream, to account for an opinion. The biggest problem is a lack of mainstream coverage of any kind. Luke Ford and Roger T Pipe and Gram Ponante are the few people who has a mainstream acceptability. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aditya Kabir, I do not dispute that the SPS is OK for verification, what I am disputing is whether this is information that Wikipedia should care to present, if there is noone else who published about it. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The information was covered by mainstream newspapers, but not an interview. Besides, there are only a few porn journalists and critics who are covered and quoted by mainstream media - Luke Ford, Roger Pipe, Gram Ponante and Mike South. All have written on on Jazmin and I would love to include what they wrote. Among the four, only the Luke Ford link is a problem.
I don't need an unblock of the whole website or for all Wikipedia. I just need one link for one article. Wikipedia has accepted hundreds of pictures from the lukeisback website. I am sure it can be used as a cite in one or two articles. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: The article startegy has changed because of newer BLP policies. I don't think a BLP can use any SPS whatsoever. I would very much like to withdraw the appeal. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

www.city-data.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanvaldez1 (talk • contribs)

@Juanvaldez1: no Declined, that site is notoriously unreliable, it was when first reported about >12 years ago, and that was still the conclusion last year. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

biofamous.com

It can be clearly seen that the other user misused the spamming option and kept this site on the blacklist. I think there was a person (maybe the competitor) behind all this spamming work. Ok remove the site from blacklist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.145.198 (talk • contribs)

@113.199.145.198: no Declined. You want a delisting request. We will not whitelist the whole domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ESF Change.org petition

Notable petition covered in news for

King George V School (Hong Kong), primary source for current number of signatures.--17jiangz1 (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@17jiangz1: no Declined, the independent sources are enough for the snapshot of that moment. The current number is unchecked and can be manipulated. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Specific crowdfunding page

A specific crowdfunding page should be whitelisted:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.gofundme.com/f/severin-family-memorial-fund

Article it would benefit:

Why it should be whitelisted:

  • Severin was a radio personality who died this week. The announcement of his death yesterday by his lawyer referenced his recent struggle with cancer. The few news reports of his death, mostly in the Boston area[1] and in the radio trades[2], imply or state that cancer was the cause, despite his having been declared cancer-free some weeks ago.
  • This GoFundMe page notes that the cause of death was a stroke, not cancer.
  • News reports are unlikely to be updated to include stroke as the cause of death now that the obituaries have already been written (in fact, the Boston Globe article I linked is the updated version), so for the time being this is likely to be the only source for this information available on the Internet. If the cause of death does get reported by another source, the GoFundMe citation in the article can be replaced.

Reliability:

  • Wikipedia:Reliable_sources currently has an open petition indicating that GoFundMe links would be evaluated individually for whitelisting.
  • The author of the GoFundMe page is a family friend as well as a licensed and board certified internal medicine physician.

References

  1. ^ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/07/10/metro/jay-severin-conservative-talk-show-host-dead-69/
  2. ^ http://www.talkers.com/2020/07/10/friday-june-10-2020/

Jimpoz (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimpoz, what about https://www.latestnewssouthafrica.com/2020/07/10/american-political-talk-radio-personality-jay-severin-has-passed-away/ and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3863646/posts?page=4 ? Dirk Beetstra T C 20:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

linktr.ee

I am creating a page called Linktree with its site, however it is a URL shortener and cannot be placed. I removed the website name, however since I have supporting citations that link to the website, that means I must remove all citations regarding the website. The citations to the site is important, so please if there's something that can be done. GeraldWL 11:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerald Waldo Luis: 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 11:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the URL of the link? It is "linktr.ee". If you meant another form of link please let me know. GeraldWL 11:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis, I meant an about page (preferred) or a full url including an index.htm. As explained in /Common requests#About we will not whitelist the root. Dirk Beetstra T C 11:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah right, finally understood your request. It is:
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: linktr.ee/s/about
Hope this is the site you're requesting. GeraldWL 12:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Magazine article

A specific page should be whitelisted:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: freedommag.org/english/canada/reports/page01.htm

Article it would benefit:

  • Wrongful involuntary commitment

Why it should be whitelisted:

  • This page is very accessible and reliable; all of the information is succinct while being accurate and so it's a good source for readers looking for more information on the topic. This same Freedom Magazine article has also been referenced in several articles online. Factfanatic1 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources noticeboard. Please start a new discussion on the noticeboard asking for opinions on the reliability of this source. ​— Newslinger talk 23:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

@Factfanatic1: no Declined. It is hard to think of a less reliable source on anything to do with psychiatry, than a Scientology publication. --Guy (help!) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lightningclean.xyz

Hello, I've noticed that the webpage lightningclean.xyz is a blocked website because of the .xyz extension. I did some research, and it looks like this is a fairly common occurrence. The site has some relevant information for the washing machine page on Wikipedia, and I think being able to add the link would make it a lot more credible.Tiffellington (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reliable sources, instead. — Newslinger talk 22:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Gutenberg.us link in a Talk page Archive

I would like to archive most of what is here to an archive. However, there is a Gutenberg.us link which preventsit. I cannot provide the precise link on this request page, because WP does not let me. Veverve (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veverve, I doubt it .. gutenberg.us is not on the blacklist. It must be something else. Dirk Beetstra T C 16:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: no Declined, see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May_2018#World_Heritage_Encyclopedia_mirrors. I would disable the link to avoid people following it, it is going to be on a talkpage archive, nothing that is drastically important for clicking. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


achim

Please, put the following Website back to the Whitelist, for the Content is full of interesting Content and free from any "difficulties": https://achim-the-pooh.de/ -- Thanks to Everybody who can help! ACHIM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1A11:B7C0:C2F:D64B:F439:4856 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do here, not blacklisted. —Dirk Beetstra T C 17:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

\bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\/homepage\b

To be removed, is a 404. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, why is the deletion still not done? Beetstra edits MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist often. - A876 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

echo

The site's homepage used to be petitions.whitehouse.gov/homepage. Now that URL is a 404, so its whitelist entry serves no function, and should be removed (restating the above).

The site's homepage is now https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ (the site's root URL, where, as most webmasters have learned, every homepage should reside from the get-go). It follows that a whitelist entry (for this one page) should be added, to replace the one that is to be removed. - A876 (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The site's new homepage (https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/) probably should not be added, because it contains multiple open petitions. (I belatedly noticed this.) I should not have asked for its addition (strike-out, above); I withdraw that request. - A876 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A876: removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

\bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\/index\.php\b

Recently the site's new homepage was added to the whitelist using a synonym of its root url, petitions.whitehouse.gov/index.php. I think it should be taken back out (removed from the whitelist). (I don't understand the need for a synonym. This URL is no more or less dangerous than the root URL. Someone seems to think that adding the root page of a domain (calling it "top domain", whatever that means) adds the entire domain. They are not the same thing.)

(Also, how about sorting the whitelist page next edit?) - A876 (talk) 07:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:BEANS, please read /Common requests for some reasons that are not so beansy. The root domain can be abused. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
@A876: I did remove it per a remark above. Please keep using the /about.
Regarding, if I whitelist '\bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\/' or '\bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov\b' then you can add petitions.whitehouse.gov but also petitions.whitehouse.gov/whatever. Those whitelist rules negates the blacklist. I could add \bpetitions\.whitehouse\.gov$, in which case you can only add petitions.whitehouse.gov and nothing else, but that a) still allows you to add 'go find this petition on petitions.whitehouse.gov' (which people already happily add, we don't have to increase that success - it is worse with '[www.mycompany.com my company] is the best.' and pornhub, b) it is otherwise abusable (not explained per
WP:BEANS, if people try to figure it out themselves I will blanket block them as they intend to be malicious). The index.htm is less obvious (people who run into the petitions.whitehouse.gov-block will have to figure out that they can only use the /index.htm which most will not understand how to figure out, and they will have gotten the warning with the first hit) and cannot be abused that easy under scheme b (disclaimer still applies). These are all limitations of the MediaWiki software. Sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Forgot to answer: no, we are keeping the whitelist roughly in order of time (adding new additions generally to the bottom). Sorting it every time is an enormous bureaucratic waste of time, and the sorting is rather nonsensical with the regex tags (even if most are \b). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

essay1

I think we would have understood each other better if content here were clearer and terms were chosen more carefully. "Top domain" has no clear meaning to me – it sounds like "

third-level domains. A bad-enough top-level domain could be added to the blacklist, in which case the whitelist might begin to add some second-level domains.) "Root domain" also has no clear meaning to me – it sounds like either the DNS root zone (the parent of every top-level domain) -or- the root of a top-level domain, which can serve a website. (Though very few do, e.g. the redirectors http://org./ http://tv./ http://at./ http://ai./ etc. They use that obscure syntax because the "more-obvious" http://org looks for a computer on your LAN named "org", and http://.org
must have seemed inelegant.) You seem to be using "top domain" and "root domain" to mean the top of a domain or the root of a domain. But I can't sustain that reading; the word "domain" keeps hitting me and it doesn't fit the context. The root folder and "everything in the root folder" are not the same thing (though they might seem that way if you are working with an inadequate processor that can't distinguish them). I think it is better to never use the phrases "top domain" and "root domain" again.

A domain or website has a tree structure, similar to a file system (and it usually maps to a folder in a file system). A website has a root folder. Every folder can contain files and/or [sub-]folders. A URL can specify a folder name or a filename. A server can handle a request for a folder name in various ways. The most obvious default action is to return a listing of the files and folders in that folder (though some sites disallow that and show an error page instead). The next obvious approach is for the server to first check for an HTML document (which typically describes the contents or actions relevant to that branch of the website), that folder's "

webserver directory index". The obvious place to store that HTML document is in the folder itself, with a generic name such as "index.[s]htm[l]". The server usually scans a prioritized search-list of names, such as "index.php; index.htm; index.html". But there is no standard name; many names are common; files of every name can exist concurrently; and the addition of a higher-priority name does not delete any lower-priority name. If one finds that the server returns the same content for http://example.com/index.foo as for http://example.com/, that is not proof that http://example.com/ actually returns http://example.com/index.foo; it might only be a coincidence; only the webmaster could find out for sure. I think a webserver that (for example) answers requests for http://example.com/ by serving http://example.com/index.foo should answer any request for http://example.com/index.foo itself by serving a 404 page, simply to disallow the use of unnecessary synonyms. Lacking that mechanism, a webmaster could achieve the same effect through obscurity, by configuring http://example.com/ to serve http://example.com/unguessable.filename (or maybe even serve a file that resides outside the website's folder tree, if possible, but that is awkward). The "moral" here is: Linking http://example.com/index.foo is not good practice; such links go bad and don't always show it. If the site's homepage links and Google results show http://example.com/, it is truly shameful to go and "sniff out" the existence http://example.com/index.foo and link that instead of the root URL. It seems generally wiser to link http://example.com/, even if the linked site rewrites or redirects that to http://example.com/wafflepack///-/~/%1234/monkeybar.cs?one=banana&2=hammer&sessid=2193829381f23267&fbclick=ilnuminatti665.9#aplic_woo
.

If the whitelisting processor cannot distinguish between the root folder and "everything in the root folder", it is sadly flawed, and probably needs a new syntax. (Btw, that \b \. stuff is ugly anyway.) There should be no difficulty listing the single "page" http://example.com/ without implicitly listing http://example.com/* (everything in the folder, recursive (or not)). Just as there should be no difficulty listing the single "page" http://example.com/foo/ without implicitly listing http://example.com/foo/* (recursive).

Webservers differ, and that could add difficulty. But I think it is possible to interpret whitelist entries without having to know which webserver software each site is currently running. http://example.com/foo/ "should" be a folder. http://example.com/foo "should" be a file. I'm sure many webservers interpret .../foo as .../foo/ when there is a folder but no file. Maybe some webservers interpret .../foo/ as .../foo when there is a file but no folder. Some rewrite the URL in the browser; maybe some don't. (It doesn't bother the webserver. Is it a problem for us?) It could complicate if the server allows a file .../foo and a folder .../foo/ to coexist (in the same folder). It could complicate if the webmaster replaces the file .../foo with the folder .../foo/ (or vice-versa). Some servers could be case-insensitive (foo=Foo=fOo); some could be case-sensitive (foo, Foo, and fOo can co-exist); handling this could be as simple as making the blacklist case-insensitive and the whitelist case-sensitive. Is http://example.com/ interchangeable with http://example.com? Is https://example.com/ interchangeable with https://example.com? (I think so.) If the website is on https: should it be possible to add a link to http:? (Probably not; the user will never pick up http: from a browser view, they could only copy it from a link address on a page or a text. Or maybe; the site could "downgrade".) If the website is on https: should it be possible to add a link to http:? (Probably; sites "upgrade" all the time.) What if a site serves differnt content on http: and https:?? - A876 (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS
because the beans are worse than this, and I’ve seen people figuring this out). People who want to spam their website, as well as people who feel strong about the cause of a petition, go to great lengths to get stuff on Wikipedia. We had people blatantly asking for whitelisting their own pay-per-view websites because Wikipedia disallowed them to make more money. We see requests to whitelist open petitions. People go at great lengths to support ‘their cause’ (because often, it pays their bills). A neutral landing page is less obvious, and hence does not result in these problems. (and if someone goes through the effort ... the more reason to block them without warning - it is why I sometimes warn people not to evade with nowiki tags or other tricks, soliciting votes by providing a non-working link to the petition is still soapboxing and intentionally evading the blacklist to circumvent the very reason something is blacklisted. Providing that as an example on a wikipage is also beansy).
Yes, the spam blacklist extension is stupidly flawed. That has been recognised years ago (as in: more than 10), and I am fighting for quite some years to get it completely overhauled. Until then we have to live with this. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beacon.org

Four links good for acceptable primary source claims at White Fragility (published by Beacon Press):

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: beacon.org/White-Fragility-P1631.aspx,
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: beacon.org/assets/pdfs/whitefragilityreadingguide.pdf,
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: beacon.org/assets/pdfs/DiAngelo-EducatorsProfDevGuide.pdf,
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: beacon.org/Assets/PDFs/white_fragility_disc_guide.pdf.

beacon.org is only on the blacklist per COI editing in 2012 (added per this request) so perhaps the site could be removed from the blacklist fully. — Bilorv (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv, how is it even relevant to mention that 'To accompany the book, Beacon Press's website offers ...', that is just short of mentioning 'To accomodate reader's choice, Beacon Press's website offers a hardback version, a pocket version and several formats suitable for e-readers'. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:PRIMARY). If you have suggestions about different wording (I don't think the wording is particularly good) then this isn't a reason to hold up the whitelisting but I'm all ears. — Bilorv (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Bilorv, that was not what I said, I asked why it is relevant, I am not disputing that it is true. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: as before, they're substantial bodies of work released in conjunction with the book which would be odd to omit mention of given that they're a large part of the work White Fragility which has received widespread secondary source attention — Bilorv (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, as has been done for books for years, I saw them in high school. It is not uncommon at all, so I fail to see the relevance. Maybe some other admin thinks differently. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the argument here—that we don't report facts about books which are common? It's not uncommon for a book to be published by (e.g.) Penguin Random House but that's still a fact we need to mention (when true) because it's a basic fact of the publication history. — Bilorv (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv, yes, I see the relevance of a book being published by two in itself notable big publishing houses. I do not see the relevance of mentioning that Beacon also added a reading guide, and I have difficulties finding examples elsewhere. Things should be ‘true’ when added to a page, but that does not mean that everything that is true goes onto Wikipedia. Why are the reading guide and so relevant here while I don’t see them mentioned anywhere else on books? Dirk Beetstra T C 20:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: no Declined. Not seeing any reason why we would whitelist a spammed source to include what is, in the end, promotional text. --Guy (help!) 08:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2020/07&oldid=1018104393"