Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2017/07

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

change.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Link requested to be whitelisted: change.org/p/name-the-bay-bridge-for-emperor-norton?lang=en-US

Please whitelist the specified link to the Change dot org petition for use on the page The Emperor's Bridge Campaign.

The petition was the "foundational gesture" and the impetus for the launch of the nonprofit, The Emperor's Bridge Campaign, that is the subject of the page. As such, it is a key historical moment in the development of the Campaign.

Numerous of the page's references describe and link to the petition. These references include the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Bay Guardian, KQED, the Los Angeles Times, SFist, Laughing Squid and the San Jose Mercury News. Johnlumea (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly second that! How did it ever get on the blacklist?? There is a Change.org page. To me it's worse than blacklisting Twitter. Rant over :) DadaNeem (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnlumea and DadaNeem: Change.org, and many petition sites, are blacklisted because of continued abuse. People are creating or supporting a petition and they link it from Wikipedia to gather more support. That goes from the very silly till serious subjects, but is in all cases in direct violation of WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia writes about a subject, we are not writing a soapbox. Now there are two scenarios: a petition is gathering some votes but in the world no-one cares about. So we don't need to mention it either, it is irrelevant to us. Or, it gets noticed in the outside world. Newspapers write 'the petition gathered 20.000 votes in less than a month, people really want it to be changed'. That secondary analysis then makes the whole primary reference unneeded. So in short, petitions should only be mentioned in Wikipedia if there are sufficient secondary references speaking about the subject, and that is when the petition itself does not need to be used.
This is very much such a case, you say that The Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Bay Guardian, KQED, the Los Angeles Times, SFist, Laughing Squid ánd the San Jose Mercury News all mention it. That is enough. It is also not the official website of the subject (that is http://www.emperorsbridge.org/), so also per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL a link to the petition would not be needed there.
So I think the question is: what do you want to use this link for that cannot be conveyed through secondary sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Beetstra for the prompt reply. I appreciate that the secondary source can be sufficient to carry the news-in the case of Marjan Davari, the Twitter part of the campaign to get Amnesty to take on her death sentence case surely links to Change.org. I would be interested in how Change.org got blacklisted in the first place as I don't see any "paper trail". Can you enlighten me Beetstra? DadaNeem (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quick & dirty links to paper trail: Original addition, subsequent discussion, subsequent discussion, FAQ. Kuru (talk) 11:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DadaNeem: (ec) The exact paper trail is here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2015#Petition_sites, but there are many discussions about many petition sites, including the whitehouse.gov one, and the UK parliament one. This is not spam in the sense of an organisation posting their link everywhere for promotion/financial gain, but many unrelated individuals posting one or two links each for attracting attention to a ‘good cause’ (spamming their link to get exposure). In many cases it involves single purpose accounts. That then needs to be offset against the fact that there actually is not often legitimate use, one of the rare exceptions is when a petition is actually the direct subject of a page, or rare needs for primary sourcing (the latter is mostly replaceable). –Dirk Beetstra T C 12:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

bmihealthcare.co.uk

[edit]

bmihealthcare.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/consultants/lawrence-peter-ormerod

Reputable UK healthcare organisation, whose website includes biographies of notable physicians, and descriptions of hospitals, many of which are historic buildings. The specific URL s needed for Lawrence Peter Ormerod (citation currently commented out). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, may be reputable, but the spamming smells too much of SEO work (which is something also reputable organisation use). See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2017/06#BMI. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

360cities.net

[edit]

360cities.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.360cities.net/image/sm-southmall

Reputable link for the article SM Southmall in which it provides a reliable source for the history of the mall and the 2010 redevelopment. Please whitelist the whole site or just the link I requested on SM Southmall. BugMenn (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BugMenn: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Nov_1#360cities.net, seen the active advertising incentive and spam incentive (even if it is now in the past), I am uncomfortable with whitelisting the whole site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

rns.online

[edit]
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: rns.online

Per discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikimandia: Testing: https://rns.online/transport/Glava-Vneshekonombanka-Sergei-Gorkov-voshel-v-sovet-direktorov-OaK--2016-06-28/ .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now done it through \brns\.(ga|cf|ml|gq|online|site)/.*?\d{4,5}[-/]\d{1,2}[-/]\d{1,2}.*}} I know it could be simpler but this is a complex conflict of rules. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Works!! Thank you so much! —МандичкаYO 😜 07:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hxbenefit.com

[edit]

Per discussion. --CFCF T C 13:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to added useful research on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paresthesia) to point this great research by "HxBenefit Editorial Team" here (www.hxbenefit.com/causes-of-numbness-and-tingling-paresthesia-in-fingertips.html ) and its on blacklist here.

This article and the portal are great sources for useful information and help me a lot so i dont think we should block it, might be a mistake

Idanb85 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC) : -->[reply]

@Idanb85: (I'm not sure why you added a copied malformed signatures here). This was spammed and deemed useless by the relevant wikiproject, and fails our inclusion standards. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2017/07&oldid=1079601657"