MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2018/06

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

change.org

I'd like to suggest the 'change.org' weblink be delisted. I was updating the citations for the page Death_of_LaVena_Johnson and wanted to include (either cite or add as an external link) the actual petition page from change.org... and was surprised to find it block listed. Perusing the list, I noticed it is 'bchange.org' which is blocked, not specifically 'change.org'. Change.org is, in my understanding, a tool of direct democracy in petitioning government representatives according to the 1st Amendment as explained here: Right_to_petition_in_the_United_States. Cheers. -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HafizHanif: did you read /Common requests? If the fact is worth mentioning, there are independent sources, negating the necessity of the primary source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it is an issue of preferring a news source or a third / independent, and not so much that the particular website is an issue? -- HafizHanif (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, the website is the issue. Petition sites are blanket blacklisted. They are often abused, and there is hardly any legit use for them. Again, if the fact is important enough that it needs to be mentioned, then it needs independent sources. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisting protects Wikipedia from soapboxing, with nearly no collateral damage. There are cases where the primary source is needed, but they are rare. —Dirk Beetstra T C 20:13, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

filmindustrynetwork.biz

I am currently doing some work on

Deadpool 2 (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) and would like to use this interview with the film's composer. Regardless of what issues there has been with this site before, there should be no problem with using an exclusive interview like this. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply
]

@Adamstom.97: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been updating the page for William Shatner and have been unable to add an interview from this news site which goes in-depth on one of his documentaries. I don't understand why it is flagging for spam. --Gbstar12 (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: filmindustrynetwork.biz/william-shatner-discusses-chaos-on-the-bridge-exclusive/29411

Csgopedia.com

Trying to adding the link to the site for KioShiMa article for information about player Maikelele:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: csgopedia.com/players/maikelele/

It appears to doesn’t have any spams. Site does not look like spam. There are 3 top sites about CS:GO esport and this one is one of them- it provides all information about settings of pro players and their current gameplay. Site had changed in 2017 very much. Alexkillern1

As an apparently at least partly user generated site it's obviously not a
reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, the content of the site, settings used by pro players (i.e. not info about the players and their careers, only their computer/game settings) and lots of paid-for promotion for hardware, also makes it unsuitable for any use on Wikipedia. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 08:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply
]
@Alexkillern1: no Declined, per Thomas. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


investing.com

I am doing some work on Charles E. Kirk and adding a media mention from an article written by Jeff Miller on May 25, 2018. He mentions Mr. Kirk and included Mr. Kirk's list of mistakes made by amateur traders. This article is meant to help and educate those who wish to learn more about trading, investing and managing money.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatherjana (talk • contribs)

Can you please review Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2018_Archive_Mar_1#investing.com, and indicate how (if?) this link is needed and not replaceable. It seems the site has little original content. —Dirk Beetstra T C 19:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

altritaliani.net

I think its 2010 COIBot flag mean there is a COI issue rather than any problem with the site per se. jnestorius(talk) 00:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jnestorius: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sbclife.net

@Mikalra: This is not blacklisted
 Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you used the link provided by a google search result. That is a google link that is blacklisted. You have to take the direct link as above. —Dirk Beetstra T C 06:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right; I don't know how I missed that. Thanks for the prompt review.Mikalra (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

salmonsolutions.co.uk

Okcid1 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Okcid1: no Declined, not a reliable source, rather a commercial site aimed at selling. No independent oversight. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

econlib.org

I'm really not sure why this site would be on a blacklist. I'm here as I saw a notice on a page I was consulting Gregory King that this domain was blacklisted and I thought I'd try to address that. Ppival (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ppival: no Declined, there are alternatives, e.g. https://mises.org/library/theory-political-economy, and there is no reason to use a link on a site that has an agenda, especially not if there is a paid editing group where the leader has both a clear connection with this site and edits subjects related to econlib. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: What is the agenda of the site? And can you be specific about the paid editing group? I haven't noticed the site having an unusual agenda. If it does, it has far less of one than mises.org. I just find the blacklisting of the site bizarre, as Ppival did. --Eharding (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ppival and Eharding: ”Library of Economics and Liberty”, neutral libraries exist (including our own WikiSource in some cases), most universities have the books as well. It is difficult to be specific because most of their edits relating this have been deleted (and a lot of their domains have been blacklisted). See user Vipul’s connections for more info. Any comparison with other sites does not hold unless also they have shown to get into having declared payed editors who create pages related to them.
I have return questions: why is it so strange (nay: bizarre) that an organisation is involved with payed editors that publish pages about them? Do you really find it strange that respectable organisations feel the urge to be represented on Wikipedia? —Dirk Beetstra T C 06:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bitly.com

If it is technically possible, I'd like to request an unblock of bitly's homepage, to link to it in the infobox on Bitly. The article currently has an appended ?main, which does not seem canonical, in fact, clicking on the homepage link on bitly gets you to the main page without ?main.

I read /Common requests and found two sections regarding this requests:

/Common requests#URL_shorteners: I think this doesn't apply because I only want to unblock the main page of bitly.com.

/Common requests#The_official_homepage_of_the_subject_of_a_page: I think this applies. "Note that requests to whitelist the domain itself will generally not be honoured, as it would negate the blacklisting and would allow abuse of the homepage (which is sometimes one of the reasons the whole site was blacklisted in the first place). Please find a neutral landing page like the site's "about" or "information" page, and request whitelisting in the usual way." This doesn't seem to be the case for bitly.com, it's blacklisted not because of its content (on homepage or linked pages) but for the shortened URLs.

-- Heinrich5991 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Heinrich5991: no Declined. “requests to whitelist the domain itself will generally not be honoured, as it would negate the blacklisting”. Your request would do the same, negate the blacklist. We therefore suggest “...a neutral landing page like the site's "about" or "information" page ...” Here, we chose ‘?main’, which actually results in the main page, without having a possibility to be abused. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:36, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Is it technically impossible to whitelist the mainpage but not any subpages? -- Heinrich5991 (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Heinrich5991: it is technically possible, but for many sites that link itself is the reason for blacklisting. I therefore do not see why we need to go through the extra bureaucracy here. —Dirk Beetstra T C 05:07, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Ok, so the reason for the decline isn't [“requests to whitelist the domain itself will generally not be honoured, as it would negate the blacklisting”. Your request would do the same, negate the blacklist.] but that we don't want to go through bureaucracy. OK. -- Heinrich5991 (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Heinrich5991: No, for many other sites, doing the technically possible whitelisting of the top domain would negate the blacklisting. That is also true here, though the chances of encountering abuse may be smaller here - different type of ‘abuse’. Whitelisting the top could be abused through a technical backdoor (but that anyway), an ‘about’ has less of such problems on all. —Dirk Beetstra T C 12:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bitcointalk.org

BitcoinTalk is an historical reference of the early days of Bitcoin's development. The domain has been blacklisted due to spam. As the site contains the original source of much of the reference material used in ongoing Bitcoin and cryptocurrency research and debates the whitelisting of at least parts of the site would be the only way to add canonical references to associated Wikipedia articles. In this case I am requesting only one page for a simple reference of an existing direct quote from Satoshi Nakamoto on the Daniel Larimer wikipedia page. --Opacey (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Opacey: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2018/06&oldid=852244295"