Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/02

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

verywellmind.org

[edit]
Reasons

This specific page contains information about a large 15 year old active online smoking cessation community, which is the type of support that's talked about in the Smoking Cessation's Self-help of Psychosocial approaches subsection. Without talking about this large group that's tied to a reputable website Verywellmind.com that wiki is sorely incomplete. -- User109012 (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

open.online

[edit]
Reasons

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

I requested three links that I will use in the 2019 More Europe leadership election but I think in the future there will be more articles to cite and it would be useful if the entire site was whitelisted. David Puente, an Italian debunker, is part of the newspaper and contributed to its foundation.--Broncoviz (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for records. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I got what you mean, sorry. Can you explain it? Did I miss something?--Broncoviz (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Broncoviz: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

kubadownload.com

[edit]

id.wikipedia.org/wiki/VirtualBox I'm requesting to remove the domain (kubadownload.com) from the blacklist. I was updating information regarding software version updates depending on data available on the website adding ref as the source of information. I was sure that this is the right method to do it because there are other links in software version referring to download page to for example softpedia.com. And like in this example with VirtualBox, the page was not updated since 2012, and I was thinking that this is a useful idea to provide an update to the page with the proper ref with more information. KubaDownload is not a spam website, the hub is trusted by IrfanView, AIMP, XnView, CDBurnerXP, EMDB, KCSoftware, FileOptimizer, RJ TextEd and more.

no Declined. Links to download sites and the software itself are just primary references. All non notable software and these additions are all just advertising/spam. Wikipedia is not the place to pr9mote software. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

infowars.com

[edit]
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: infowars.com/protesters-have-the-right-to-protest-%E2%80%A6-and-to-resist-unlawful-arrest/

Exception only needed on...

Plummer v. State

...and on...

Bad Elk v. United States

See discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Troubleshooting and problems.

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
testing again, I had encoding problems: infowars.com/protesters-have-the-right-to-protest-%E2%80%A6-and-to-resist-unlawful-arrest/ --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now works. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

infowars.com

[edit]

No longer used, now redundant per better sources for the same content. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

academicroom.com

[edit]

I'm requesting that the article titled "The Revolutionary Mission: American Enterprise in Cuba" by Thomas F. O'Brien be white listed for the purpose of documenting the history of General Electric's subsidiary in Cuba be linked to in the wikipedia article Electric Bond and Share Company(Ebasco). Ebasco was once the largest electric power holding company in the United States that was dismantled over a 26 year period by order of the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission. The company's foreign investments that included Cuba and at least 13 other countries is still in play today as those resources were nationalized by the Cuban revolution in 1959, with outstanding stock holdings still being on the books of Office Depot today. This is a major international issue that needs fully access to this important article that documents the history GE's relationship to the Cuba Electric Co. Energynet (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article is copyright by American Historical Review. Can you provide evidence that the site has appropriate rights to host a full-text version? We cannoty link to copyright material hosted in violation of the rights of the owners. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, thanks. Energynet (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cbronline.com 'as taligent'

[edit]

Hi guys. I don't want to risk anything if this server is compromised, as I don't know the nature of the abuse. But this particular page is a valid source for Taligent, as an archive of the site's original vintage 1990s news magazine. Thanks. — Smuckola(talk) 13:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a press release so can safely be ignored anyway. Wait til there are actual reviews of the product. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: What? It's not a press release; as I said, it's an archive of a 1993 magazine written by CBR on a subject from the 1990s. I haven't yet found any other article with this information. — Smuckola(talk) 14:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Smuckola: the article is clearly, and possibly quite literally, a regurgitation of a press release. It is basically a primary source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is it so wrong to use a primary source here? I'm just wondering why that's a problem. In the areas I edit, that's not often a problem. dannymusiceditor oops 19:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: No it isn't, nor is this one in my case. These guys here are graciously performing an important and complicated antispam service for which we are all very grateful, but in this case they're going beyond antispam and into presumptive arbitrary content gatekeeping, on a subject they are mistakenly claiming telepathic superknowledge of. They're not expected to understand the subject, only to understand spam. They aren't really paying attention to what I'm saying, what the source is or what it's saying, and they don't know the destination Wikipedia subject matter. Nor should they. And I don't know what specifically makes cbronline.com a threat to wikipedia, because I don't know what constitutes spam to who or where. I don't know where to find a history of a site's abuses, but they have whitelisted other cbronline.com URLs so I'm assuming the server itself doesn't assault every web browser. Curious. To answer your question, generally speaking, we can use primary sources all we want on minor details or to embellish established secondary sources, which is what I'm doing. You can see WP:PRIMARY for more info. — Smuckola(talk) 01:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See, that's what I thought might be the case and I share your concern. I was asking first, because I know in some instances it is too sensitive to use primaries and I don't know better about the subject matter you propose it be used for. dannymusiceditor oops 01:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: Right. My articles are virtually indestructible because I lay down reliable secondary sources except for some embellishments or technical details like dates, times, places, or quotations. I see now that cbronline.com is a bad spammer but they're well acknowledged for having been a WP:RS for exactly what I'm using it for, the print archive; and so the whitelist is an acknowledged workaround.[1] I apologize (though the spamming isn't my fault lol) if this request somehow complicates anything, and I probably do have a few more of their URLs to request. This is after having spent a couple years compiling sources for this one article alone. And I thank everyone again for their diligent dirty work in fighting spam. — Smuckola(talk) 02:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Also, you said something about them and "content gatekeeping". I know you mean no disrespect, and you didn't, but I think there's a reason they do it. I think content gatekeeping is inherently part of their job for whitelisting anything, because some of the ones listed in this spam list are also grossly unreliable/unsuitable for Wikipedia. I have also seen cases where other good sources already exist that aren't blacklisted at a comparatively easy-to-access cost, and thus they find it's not worth the effort to fix it (though I don't always agree with that call). I also recognize that this can result in calls that are, at least in my opinion, mistakes. (Note that I'm not saying anything about the source you're requesting being unreliable or reliable, because, again, I genuinely don't know it.) Anyway, Dirk, if you could have another look at this, that would be great. Am I correct? (Well, that doesn't matter as much as if Smuckola here is correct, which they may quite possibly be. What's wrong with using a primary source in this case? They're not forbidden.) (A final side note: I built my assumptions on some of the things I "know" because I stalked this page and had it on my watchlist since the day I requested a link used on Kid A be whitelisted.) dannymusiceditor oops 02:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. neither Guy, nor I have declined this request
  2. Even if we decline, this is a discussion, and we can be convinced otherwise. Moreover, the discussion could go to a state where there are !votes showing that it is needed.
  3. the initial presentation was "a valid source for Taligent, as an archive of the site's original vintage 1990s news magazine" .. that does not recognise that most, if not all, of this material is not original material, it are press releases.
  4. when being pointed out that it are basically press releases, the remark was "It's not a press release; as I said, it's an archive of a 1993 magazine written by CBR on a subject from the 1990s" .. no, it IS a press release, or better, it is a regurgitation of a press release. That makes this basically a primary source that is pretending to be a secondary source
  5. now, there is (next response) nothing (really) wrong with a primary source, but this is, again, a regurgitation of a primary source (the article is, as usual, nothing more than a 'they said'). But a) it is not the primary source, it is a regurgitation of a primary source, and often (really, most of the cases) the actual primary source is still available - and that is always better to use. And even if primary sources are sometimes fine, b) it is still always better to use a secondary source.
  6. now, sometimes the actual press release (the real primary source) does not exist anymore, and there are no secondary sources that are telling the same. It is however NOT my (nor Guy's, nor anyone elses) task to find and show those sources. Request for whitelisting is not a dumping ground for everything that someone needs, we expect you to do the due diligence to check whether better sources exist, or whether it is properly replaceable. And a 'the original source does not exist anymore, it is not mentioned sufficiently in secondary sources so this is the only place left over that there is to source this information' is sufficient.
  7. user:Smuckola in your "These guys here are graciously .."-reply you then first start to attack with stating "... into presumptive arbitrary content gatekeeping, on a subject they are mistakenly claiming telepathic superknowledge of ...". First of all, there is no content gatekeeping, you do not provide any information that we state, and misrepresent the original source: a regurgitation of a primary source. You do not know whether we read the article, or knowledgeable on the subject or did further research. You do not provide information that it is unique, you do not provide information that there are no suitable secondary sources. Do you expect us to help you? Whitelisting (and blacklisting) is an area that almost ALL people avoid, there is way more work than there are volunteers to help close the gates, and I prefer to spend my time on closing parts of our floodgates instead of handling a flood of incomplete requests.
  8. (with some exceptions, blacklisting is primarily done on the basis of 'abuse' .. that is spamming (adding of links with the aim of promotion), or other forms of continuous abuse (e.g. what I would call 'shock vandalism'), or a big chance that it will be abused (redirect sites; the other domains in the portfolio of a known spammer). Being an utter non-reliable source alone is not a reason to blacklist, except if directed by the community that that is wanted (it generally needs an RfC on WP:RSN). Being unreliable, or, as here, practically being an often replaceable primary source, does not help the cause of the site when it gets spammed (we will show rather low patience and blacklist early). Unfortunately we see respectable organisations perform SEO activities to a level that needs a form of control. For cbronline, much of their content is not needed as it can be replaced with the real primary source: the press releases they base their information on. We do however whitelist cbronline on a rather regular basis as some of the original press releases are not available anymore.

So, as neither Guy and I have flat out rejected/declined to handle this request, can you please provide proper information as to why this regurgitation of this primary source is needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC) (adapted --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

  • Additionally, there is some kind of bar to whitelisting because a blacklisted source has some history of abuse. The onus is on the editor requesting whitelisting, to satisfy others that the source is the best one for the content. Here we have an article based on a press release, so if it is significant there must be an independent source. Things reported only in regurgitated press releases, are not demonstrably significant. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. Explain to me why those wouldn't be significant. I'm learning a lot here and would appreciate some more context. What if the original is no longer available and this is the best we can do? I do not know if that is the case or not, just asking. dannymusiceditor oops 16:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor: it is obviously rather easy to show it is not significant: noone independent wrote about it (it even suggests so in the article: 'It escaped general attention at the time ...'). And it is not our task to show it is not significant, rather the opposite: it is the requester's task to show it is significant. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

change.org - Philippines record petition

[edit]

Seeking to remove link referral data (utm_source junk) from Change.org#In_the_Philippines but the spam filter blocks my edit. Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I whitelisted it long enough for me to make the edit for you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: the link has been removed afterwards, the secondary source is more than enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

northerntransmissions

[edit]

northerntransmissions.com: 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: northerntransmissions.com/interview-peter-bjorn-john/

The website itself was banned for spamming back in 2012, but articles related to Peter Bjorn and John's album Breakin' Point will really benefit from this interview. Thanks. Pancake (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PancakeMistake: allready plus Added to whitelist (script failure to post here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

babepedia.com

[edit]
Reasons

I was redirected here by user billinghurst (at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#Proposed_removals). I wanted to update the Playboy Playmates of the Year page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Playboy_Playmates_of_the_Year) and noticed the external link was linking to a site that doesn't exist anymore and is redirecting to the official site which hasn't been updated in a year or so. Same issue for the Playmate Of The Month and the Penthouse Pets. When trying to update to my source to babepedia.com (the only site that is regularly updating its listing it seems), I noticed babepedia.com is on the blacklist. Hoping it can be removed, as it's a reputable source that is not overloaded with annoying ads like many adult sites out there. 83.134.10.196 (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: hang on, that seems like a user-edited source, so we should not be using it here. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, you are wrong here. The Playmate and Penthouse listings are not user-edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.11.241.213 (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
undone, not used/no response. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

change.org - wikipedia policy enforcement

[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/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing/responses/11054

This would be to give the original source of the WP:LUNATICCHARLATANS quote. Should be whitelisted across Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not needed, there are independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the best way to verify a quote is to give its original source. It's also heavily (at least 9 times) used across Wikipedia, and there's no reason why that specific sublink should not be allowed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: 9 times? In mainspace? (as we generally 'restrict' whitelistings to specific a specific page or pages, maybe it is best to list them).
@JzG: I understand your 'not needed', but we do allow convenience links and primary sources. The petition is closed, so there is not a chance of soapboxing (unless you want to consider the essay itself soapboxing). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In various meta space. Couldn't care about mainspace uses. If I (or anyone else) want to put that quote in my user space or in Wikipedia space, with the original source, I should be able to.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: OK, the first part I agree with. The second part I disagree more with. No, you cannot put anything you want outside of mainspace (or more general, content-related namespaces). WP:IWANTIT is not a reason for inclusion either (you cannot turn your userpage into a soapbox either). I agree more with your initial sentiments of this discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So we're forbidden to quote Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, about Wikipedia policy, with the original source for his words because ... why exactly? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: I have no friggin' clue where you read that in my words. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I read anything in your words, but you did accuse me/imply I was planning on WP:SOAPBOXING. I made a very reasonable request for a link to be whitelisted, a request which remains unanswered, and a question about what the reason for keeping this link blacklisted, despite zero potential of threats to Wikipedia if it were whitelisted, which also remains unanswered. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: whoa, there. Remember, Beetstra's first language is not English (fluent though he is), and text always loses all nuance. The issue here is a purely pragmatic one: tacitly encouraging linking to a primary source where multiple reliable independent secondary sources exist, and thus setting a potential precedent based on our (shared, I think) appreciation of Jimbo's unequivocal pro-science stand here. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"multiple reliable independent secondary" No source will ever back the full original quote, in its full original context, free of commentary, as strongly and as directly as the original source of the quote. This is true here, as it is for any other quote. A source, which, again, remains blacklisted, for apparently no other reason than some WP:ABF-worry about WP:SOAPBOXING or other nonexistent threats. I'm not asking to get some Encyclopedia Dramatica subpage whitelisted to sneak in WP:BLP violations in articles / create attack pages here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: No, I am not accusing you of soapboxing - you can imply that you should be able to do whatever you want to do, but there are certain things you cannot do even if you want to (and I guess that nuance is lost in text). Your arguments 'This would be to give the original source' and ' the best way to verify a quote is to give its original source' are credible (though outside of content namespaces I do not see an urgent need for the link, nor is wanting it on your userpage an urgent need). But an argument 'If I want to put that quote in my user space or in Wikipedia ..' is not an argument. Maybe that also gets lost in translation - but I was minded to whitelist this link, except that, with User:JzG's comment, we do not have consensus to do so (yet?).
FYI, change.org (and many other petition sites) is blacklisted because of constant soapboxing - 'help us save XXX by voting for our petition [here]'. The use of this as a source is limited (though indeed not non-existent), but barring some exceptions (of which this particular one, IMHO, is one), the existence of a petition should only be reported when supported by independent sources, which in almost all cases removes the necessity of the primary source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"change.org (and many other petition sites) is blacklisted because of constant soapboxing - 'help us save XXX by voting for our petition [here]'." I'm well aware of why change.org is blacklisted, and I support that reason. However, linking to a very specific reply to the original petition to support a quote is not that reason. I'm not asking that a petition gets whitelisted because I want Pokémon to be outlawed for corrupting children here. I want me, and others, to be able to give the original source for a statement by Jimmy Wales about Wikipedia policy. A source, which again, is already quoted 9 times various in Wikipedia pages. Blacklisting that very specific subpage of change.org, does not in any way further the goal of protecting Wikipedia against random petitioners with an axe to grind. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: and I agree, as I stated above. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then whitelist this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this discussion for a couple of days, and I think it's time to speak up as an admin who occasionally participates here, editing both the whitelist and blacklist; it isn't just Guy and Dirk doing this.

Sorry to throw a wrench in, here. I see whitelisting this link as the beginning of a slippery slope. If there were a way to whitelist so that the link can be used only in the article currently targeted, that would be fine. But we don't have that capability. That quote, absent of any context as presented on the change.org page, looks to me like a ripe target for soapboxing on other articles that fringe POV pushers feel have suffered from censorship.

My inclination is to stop that from happening before it starts. And the full quote is available from other sources. People can still find the original quotation on change.org themselves. I am not seeing convenience as a valid reason to whitelist. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a goddamn RFC to whitelist an original source for a damned quote from Jimmy Wales? There is no slippery slope here. Wikipedia editors are not babies whose thoughts need to be policed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to whitelist this. I don't find the arguments in favor of whitelisting convincing. If another admin wants to whitelist it, I won't object, however. But I won't do it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no argument to blacklist it in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is. That specific link isn't blacklisted, the whole change.org site is blacklisted, for good reason. If you want to propose removal, you can make your case at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals but I doubt any suggestion to remove change.org from the blacklist will get very far.
As I said, I have no objection if another admin disagrees with me and whitelists this specific link, but the arguments above don't convince me. Convenience isn't a valid reason to whitelist when the same information is available from reliable sources who saw fit to give it coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole website? Yes. That specific part of the website? No. That's why I'm asking for this very specific link to be whitelisted, not asking for the entirety of change.org to be unblacklisted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hidemyass.com

[edit]

I would like to request a whitelisting of a neutral landing page on en.wikipedia HideMyAss! purely in order to provide the standard Template:URL link in the infobox of this VPN provider that was acquired by the cybersecurity company Avast in 2016. Enabling this link would conform to comparable articles.--Concus Cretus (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Concus Cretus: 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 03:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, would https://www.hidemyass.com/index be suitable? Or eventually https://www.hidemyass.com/about-us ?--Concus Cretus (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* Link requested to be whitelisted: hidemyass.com/index
For script. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Concus Cretus: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

babepedia.com removal

[edit]

This isn't a reliable source, the whitelisting request is from an IP with no other edits and I don't see any evidence that we should be using this site as a reference. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be in the whitelist anymore. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems

[edit]

I wish to restore a couple of paragraphs from the 20:29, 19 April 2017 version of Plummer v. State, but an edit filter is stopping me.

This version was discussed extensively in two RfCs and a consensus was arrived at (See Talk:Plummer v. State#Request for Comment - Internet meme section and Talk:Plummer v. State/Archive 1#Request for Comment - Internet meme section - 1st revision)

In that version, the article said

"Plummer v. State' is cited in Internet blogs and discussion groups but often misquoted:"

This was followed by a copy of the misquote with citations to the the two major unreliable websites that pretty much all of the other unreliable websites cite when they misquote the law.

After that came the actual text of Plummer v. State from reliable sources.

One of the two sources we used as citation for what the sources themselves said was infowars.com (spit!).

During the discussion that led to this version, the consensus was that we should cite where the misquotes are found, under the rule at WP:SELFSOURCE that questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves -- in other words infowars.com is reliable for establishing that infowars.com said something.

Since then an edit filter was added disallowing infowars.com which prevents me from restoring the version we discussed and agreed upon.

Because of this, I am asking that an exception be made allowing infowars.com to be cited on Plummer v. State and on Bad Elk v. United States, for the sole purpose of using it as a source for certain very widely believed pieces of false information that infowars.com claims to be true.

Before doing the actual restore, I plan on posting another RfC to make sure we still have consensus for this. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only page from infowars that we need to be able to cite is www.infowars.com/protesters-have-the-right-to-protest-%E2%80%A6-and-to-resist-unlawful-arrest/, The rest of infowars should remain blocked if at all possible.
When I just tried to post the above, the edit filter stopped me, so I munged the URL. This means that I cannot post the RFC on the Plummer v. State talk page without hitting the filter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: please file a request for whitelisting above (for the record, and then I can use my whitelisting script). Mention the link there without prepended http://, it will not be a link, but one can always copy-paste it into their address bar. (this should be made clearer in the instructions). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel free to delete this section after deciding one way or the other whether to whitelist. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
[edit]

In trying to answer a question about which specific url I wanted white-listed, I kept getting told I couldn't name it because it was black-listed URL. Can't the software allow black-listed URLs be listed on this one page? (Okeh, I got around it by truncating, but still.)Kdammers (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: When you edit this page, you get a massive red box at the top of your window, in which is mentioned (partially bolded): "Request must include the link(s) you wish to add and the article(s) to which you wish to add them. Leave out the http:// part, otherwise you will not be able to save this page.". It also has a 'format of the request' as a remark. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the massive red box? I didn't notice it before, and I don't see it now (I use Firefox)? Kdammers (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kdammers: if you edit this section, there is a yellow box (2 lines at the top), just below is a big pink/red box at the top (16 lines), and then a collapsed green box (2 lines). It is the pagenotice, so that should show on every browser. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thecustomboxes

[edit]

Why my site this link is Block ?? www.thecustomboxes.com/blog/history-of-the-saranac-laboratory-at-saranac-lake--new-york/ This page contain 100% accurate information but when i'm doing reference it shown my page is block — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleGarcia (talk • contribs) 12:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NicoleGarcia: Because it was spammed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Ooh Sorry but now you can check upper url all info is okay and accurate is there any possibility to get back my site on wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.68.119 (talk • contribs)
@139.190.68.119 and NicoleGarcia: per m:Terms ofuse, WP:SPAM and WP:COI (all of which you have been pointed to years ago): No. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Every Problem or issues has a solution i want a chance kindly tell me the way how i can prove myself i know our company Employees do this thing. I'm so sorry for this its a humble request. you can check our company site and visit our office we are working almost last 5+ years. We have almost 10-15k+ Happy Customers. we have 3 Office and a Production house in Illinois, USA. One office and production house in Pakistan and India. i'm requesting you dear Kindly Give me one chance to proof my self tell its solution. Block from wikipedia its biggest loss for my company.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.129.78.236 (talk • contribs)
The current solution seems to be working just fine, thanks. Kuru (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: @Kuru: Now shell i replace the link or not ? {{subst:NicoleGarcia}}
@NicoleGarcia: You cannot replace, it is blacklisted, and we generally do not entertain requests by site owners. It was spammed, therefore it was blacklisted. Unless totally independent editors in good standing do see a need for this link, it will not be de-blacklisted. You can try to propose, in the right section above, a specific link for a specific use and see if it passes (though again, by a non-independent user, those requests are also generally rejected). Until then, this will be Rejected. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Ooh Could you Guide me how i can submit the request in upper department ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoleGarcia (talk • contribs)
See instructions above, add a new section into the correct section. (and please, start signing your posts). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

academic-accelerator.com

[edit]
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: academic-accelerator.com/journal_metrics/ACS-Nano

I would like to request a whitelisting of this page in wikipedia.org. This website aims to construct complete journal database to assist academics on manuscript submission. The page collects and provides many important ACS Nano journal metrics such as Impact Factor, Acceptance Rate, Journal Research Hotspot, Keywords Trend, Review Speed, Revision Process, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomlasers (talk • contribs)

To make edits like this [2]? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Randomlasers: no Declined, spam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Beetstra I admit I did wrong and stupid edit. I won't do it again. Please give me a chance. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranbdomlasers (talk • contribs)

no Declined, again. I don't know what "chance" you want. That specific link has already been deemed inappropriate. That website has no information about who's behind it, where they are located, just a role email at the bottom. I see no reason to whitelist it, and no evidence that it can be considered a reliable source. What is your association with that website? ~Anachronist (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist Thanks for your time. I agree your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomlasers (talk • contribs) 00:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/02&oldid=909114143"