Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/11

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

ritualabuse.us

[edit]

ritualabuse.us: 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 I would like this site to be white listed. Apparently it was blacklisted in this discussion. I don't see it as threatening and I doubt that anyone will use it for spamming.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 08:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Process questions aside, that site is not a reliable source for anything. There's no way it should ever be linked on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sparrow (麻雀): It WAS obviously and evidently spammed, so it is threatening and your doubt is more a hope.
I suggested to whitelist specific links for which use can e shown, you don't ask for that, and do not show use. What do you want to use where? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly the more I research about the topic of extreme violence and torture perpetrated by organised groups (often linked to pedophile networks, red light milieu, theft, smuggeling, money laundring)... the more scared I get. I want to write about ritual violence- as we call it in my country. The term "Ritual abuse" has been slandered so much in the English speaking world, that it can't be saved. We'll go for a different one. There is no reason why any of those links should be blacklisted. They are mostly collections of literature, links and some results of surveys that were conducted. No reason to blacklist them. I don't even want to say where I want to use what. I have been wanting to write legitimate articles on the legitimate phenomenon of extreme violence tantamount to torture that is used to break and control children and most young women within dark parts of the sex industry of the organised crime world. Thus I want to use those links. I am planning on working with those links both in English and German on the topic of ritual violence - or non state torture.--Sparrow (麻雀) 🐧 11:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

youtu.be/V5iLXnpPhZ8

[edit]

Hello Wikipedians, I am attempting to use this video in my User Box, and because it is of youtube.be format, I cannot. Can someone please unlock it so I can cite it in my userbox? Thanks, SilentRevisions (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilentRevisions, the youtu.be shortener, as with most URL shorteners, is blocked. You should be able to link to the full URL though [1]. That said, I'm having real issues seeing how that video is a reliable source for anything. Ravensfire (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The request is for use in a userbox, not in an article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SilentRevisions: no Declined, use the expanded link, as explained above and in the box you see when you try to save the page with the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

supermemo.guru

[edit]

It seems that all .guru websites are blanket blacklisted. I can easily imagine why this is the case, but in this particular situation, supermemo.guru is the website of Piotr Wozniak, creator of SuperMemo. I was editing that page, using information from supermemo.guru explaining the creator's motivations for certain features as a reference. I would like to be able to add references to supermemo.guru on the relevant pages. Thanks! -Ramzuiv (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramzuiv: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sciencepublishinggroup.com

[edit]

Needed for WP:ABOUTSELF citations at Science Publishing Group; two citations had to be commented out in my cleanup edit just to save the page again (the citations were already present before this website was blacklisted, though I made one more specific, and reformatted both to use citation templates). I actually question the wisdom of blacklisting this host at all. The website isn't a bogus journal, it's the website of a publisher of bogus journals, and isn't likely to be cited for anything other than claims made by the publisher. Bad journals they publish should be individually blacklisted. But for now, I just care about these two URLs. PS: If they're providing full journal text under http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/journal/... addresses, then maybe just block all of those, except .../journallist.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thankee.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

justjaredjr.com

[edit]

I am not sure why this page is blocked from being listed on Wikipedia, but I need this specific link to cite a source in the filmography section on the article of Kelli Berglund. There is no need to whitelist the site itself, I am only requesting that the specific link posted above is whitelisted. If you need more information from me, I will provide it as best as I can. Eightsixofakina (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eightsixofakina, Just Jared Jr. and Just Jared are on the spam blacklist because they are celebrity gossip blogs, and Wikipedia prefers to avoid gossip in articles. I see that you've already added Hubie Halloween to Kelli Berglund's filmography using Deadline Hollywood (RSP entry), a reliable source, so thanks for that! — Newslinger talk 05:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cbronline.com/news/fire-os-google

[edit]

Requesting whitelist of a specific page. It looks like original reporting to me, and I couldn't find the article at another site. It includes, "Speaking to Computer Business Review,..." which also indicates original reporting. Benefiting article: Replicant_(operating_system) is initial page, but it could possibly benefit a few others too. -- Yae4 (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

spinninggrillers.com

[edit]

I am not sure why this page is blocked from being listed on Wikipedia, As the company representer, we have not done any unethical activity on Wikipedia. We never add any link to Wikipedia. But still, I found a few resources regarding the advertising presented on Wikipedia, the reason for blocked this website. I thought this would be done by our competitor who can harm our organization repo. Please guide us in the right direction if you have any possible solution for removing this website from your blacklisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurvindersin (talk • contribs) 06:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is why you unwittingly mangled the spam-blacklist's talk page? Try again at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, this time without removing other sections. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Onward to 2020 06:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gurvindersin: no Declined, this was blacklisted because it was spammed, and I doubt that this blog is an authoritative source on meatballs. I also note that you tried to circumvent the blacklisting by using a link shortening service (bit.ly/37b0jzS). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

breitbart.com

[edit]
  • breitbart.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: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/11/17/breitbart-news-network-born-in-the-usa-conceived-in-israel/
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/local/2014/04/07/wasserman-schultz-pelosi-condemn-tasteless-and-undignified-breitbart-california-viral-art/
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2013/02/20/NYDaily-source-friends-hamas/
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2017/01/08/fake-news-fake-news-media-sow-division-with-dishonest-attack-on-breitbarts-allahu-akbar-church-fire-story/
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2017/01/03/dortmund-mob-attack-police-church-alight/
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2016/11/21/fake-news-new-york-times-joseph-goldstein-falsely-claims-breitbart-birther/
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2013/02/07/Hagel-Friends-of-Hamas-WH/
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/11/17/breitbart-news-continues-international-expansion-with-launch-of-breitbart-jerusalem/
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/10/26/siriusxm-announces-daily-breitbart-news-radio/

Hi, I'm back. I would like to use these for this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitbart_News. Like last time, these links were already in the Wikipedia article.

I know there are nine pages, but the long and short of all this is that all of these pages are being used to assert what Breitbart has said about itself, to assert when sections of Breitbart launched, and/or to assert that a specific Breitbart article exists (linking to said article). Basically, rest assured none of these are going to be used in the article to reinforce far-right propaganda. Again, all of these links are already in the article (the URLs in the Wikipedia article contain HTTP instead of HTTPS, but they all link to the same webpages); I just want to be able to place archive URLs to them without the blacklist flagging them up. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does no reliable independent source discuss Breitbart's claims? If not they are probably WP:UNDUE. Guy (help!) 22:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

neighborhoodarchive.com

[edit]

I have no idea why this website is blacklisted. It is, as far as I can see, the most reliable source available on the television appearances of Fred Rogers. Without it, we cannot properly source the article about Rogers. Neighborhoodarchive.com is published by Tim Lybarger with permission from The Fred Rogers Company. At the bottom of neighborhoodarchive.com/about/ is a list of publications that reference this website. I have found this website is more accurate than any books published about Rogers.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see the history of spamming now. Then, I request the following to be whitelisted:
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: neighborhoodarchive.com/misc/sesame_street/index.html
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: neighborhoodarchive.com/misc/carmen_sandiego/index.html
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: neighborhoodarchive.com/misc/dr_quinn/index.html
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: neighborhoodarchive.com/video_film/arthur/index.html
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: neighborhoodarchive.com/misc/wheel_of_fortune/index.html
Thank you. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore this message. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scarletstudy.gq

[edit]

I see no issues with this site being added to the whitelist and find it confusing to why its on the blacklist in the firstplace. It is a fan of the Capcom series Pheonix wright and since Capcom refuses to create an English Dubbed and subbed on I feel it is important to have this sites translation linked on "Dai Gyakuten saiban: Naruhodo Ryunosuke no boken" page Please let us add a link to their work on the translation. Jamesie94— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesie94 (talk • contribs)

I support this but feel that as an unofficial source that is sharing copyrighted content without permission, that is probably the reason for the blacklist in the first place. And probably a reason why it wouldn't be whitelisted. SL syn (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why this is blacklisted but it shouldn't be whitelisted precisely because there is 1.) no reason to link to a transcript and 2.) we shouldn't be providing links to copyrighted material in this manner. Praxidicae (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

petition.parliament.uk/archived

[edit]

After reading Common Requests, I would still like to add a link to an archived petition on the UK Parliament website. 'petition.parliament.uk' is the official list of all open and closed petitions for the current Parliament and 'petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions' for the archived petitions from previous Parliaments. As none of the archived petitions is open, and it contains the full text of the petition, the Government response (if any) and a link to any debate (video and transcript), I believe this is a useful resource beyond media reports about the petition.

Initially it would be used on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_referendum_on_the_Brexit_withdrawal_agreement#History where this link contains most of the items that failed verification. Robertm25 (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robertm25, I can see the specific links to be useful sometimes, but I am afraid that allowing all will result in also those unsupportable by secondary sources to creep in. —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As this an official UK Parliamentary site, I don't think it faces the same issues as other petition sites, and should be treated in the same way as, say, references to Hansard. In addition, the archived site only contains closed petitions so I would suggest is not vulnerable to campaigns. (The non-archived part of the site contains a mixture of open and closed petitions but I'm not sure of an easy way to distinguish them, so could leave that disallowed.) The trouble with only allowing secondary sources is that they do not always contain links to the original and therefore I would say could be misleading or incomplete in themselves especially if you can't link directly in the article. Robertm25 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Robertm25, it is a petition site, it did get added for a reason, namely that people us it for soapboxing. Whether on a low key site, or on the uk.parliament/whitehouse, people start a petition because they feel strong about something and they want the world to know about it. Wikipedia is a perfect place for that.
Yes, the closed petitions are less of a risk. However, by far the most are not even remotely worth to be mentioned, but still will be without secondary sources. The remainder can easily be handled by whitelisting. The point is that secondary sources need to exist before we would consider to use the primary source for anything. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There are only a handful of petitions that are newsworthy in themselves, including this one. Would it be possible then to whitelist the individual petition mentioned above? Robertm25 (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertm25:  Not done .. this was already done as https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what has happened. The site was allowed, but as it has now been archived and therefore the URL has changed, it is no longer allowed. Please can the new (archived) site be whitelisted? Robertm25 (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, just discovered the old link automatically redirects, so perhaps it does not need doing after all? Or should the actual link be whitelisted? Robertm25 (talk) 11:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, the whitelisted site has moved. Although there is a redirect from the old site, can the new site also be added? (And similarly for petitions 122946 and 241584?) Robertm25 (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertm25: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Adding for convenience as the three originals have already been whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

gofundme.com

[edit]

Articles that benefit: Jana Hunter The GoFundMe page created by Jana Hunter contains details of an important step in their transition. However, the domain is blocked. In order to cite the updates posted by Hunter, I feel this particular page should be whitelisted. Thank you for your consideration. SL syn (talk) 16:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much what WP:SOAP is about. As Beetstra once said "If no one else in the world cared to report about it, why should we?" Wikipedia articles aren't a blog about the subject, it's a summary of what independent sources say. Praxidicae (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yourstory.com - Newsbytes App

[edit]

Needed for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NewsBytes_App — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.167.80 (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined - as the name implies, yourstory.com is a PR platform that is heavily engaged in startup promotion using company-submitted information. While it could theoretically be used in exceptional cases for trivial details, it is not an independent reliable source for substantial content. Please base your draft on independent non-promotional sources. GermanJoe (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yourstory.com - Jasraj

[edit]

Articles that benefit: Jasraj

I'm about to (re)nominate the article for GA status. There is one statement in the article that I need to add a citation for and the best source is this interview with Jasraj which happens to be hosted on the youstory.com site. I am not sure what the wider issue is with youstory.com but this interview seems entirely reliable to me. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curb Safe Charmer, the site is a pr site, you pay, you get your article. And it was used on Wikipedia as such. If there no-one else than the subject himself talking about this? Dirk Beetstra T C 04:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

amp.theguardian.com

[edit]

This is a source I tried to use in editing the Beaumont Health Wiki's Royal Oak category but is blocked for some reason, but is a news article about the edit I was making about the unionization push currently occuring. Without the cited evidence, it is not an accurate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdelrod82904 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zdelrod82904: no Declined. You should use https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/aug/22/us-nurses-fight-to-unionize instead. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/11&oldid=932586364"