MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:Spam-whitelist header



Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards[edit source]

If you have a source that you would like to add to the spam-whitelist, but you are uncertain that it meets Wikiafripedia's guideline on reliability, please ask for opinions on the Reliable sources noticeboard, to confirm that it does meet that guideline, before submitting your whitelisting request here. In your request, link to the confirming discussion on that noticeboard.

Likewise, if you have an external link that you are uncertain meets Wikiafripedia's guideline on external links, please get confirmation on the External links noticeboard before submitting your whitelisting request here.

If your whitelist request falls under one of these two categories, the admins will be more willing to have the source whitelisted if you can achieve consensus at one of the above noticeboards.

Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock)[edit source]

Template:Messagebox


justjaredjr.com[edit source]

I am not sure why this page is blocked from being listed on Wikiafripedia, 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)

Hi Eightsixofakina, Just Jared Jr. and Just Jared are on the spam blacklist because they are celebrity gossip blogs, and Wikiafripedia 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)

explore.org[edit source]

I tried to add a link to explore.org/livecams and was told it is blacklisted. That seems strange, as Explore.org is one of the leading organizations worldwide for education about wildlife and is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Is this a mistake? Has some troll put it on the blacklist? Please investigate!
techlady

Three .onions[edit source]

Moved from MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:


BBC's Tor-accessible site, allowing direct access to BBC News via that service. Blacklisting is not necessary as the blanket *.onion ban is mostly for all of the barely-accessible and very shady content on the Darkweb, not this. Near as I can tell, the only *.onion URI around here is Facebook's for some reason. Not sure why we are only linking out to their walled garden surveillance network and not reliable news sources or valuable non-profits. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 18:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Freedom of the Press Foundation's Tor-accessible site, allowing direct access to BBC News via that service. Blacklisting is not necessary as the blanket *.onion ban is mostly for all of the barely-accessible and very shady content on the Darkweb, not this. Near as I can tell, the only *.onion URI around here is Facebook's for some reason. Not sure why we are only linking out to their walled garden surveillance network and not reliable news sources or valuable non-profits. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 18:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

ProPublica's Tor-accessible site, allowing direct access to BBC News via that service. Blacklisting is not necessary as the blanket *.onion ban is mostly for all of the barely-accessible and very shady content on the Darkweb, not this. Near as I can tell, the only *.onion URI around here is Facebook's for some reason. Not sure why we are only linking out to their walled garden surveillance network and not reliable news sources or valuable non-profits. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 18:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Koavf:  Declined, there is no indication in the articles that these need to be mentioned next to their official sites, we normally list only one with very few exceptions. The reference to facebook is completely unrelated. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Beetstra, How is it "completely unrelated" when it's doing exactly what I'm asking to do: allow a .onion link? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Koavf, do you see the link on facebook? —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:56, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Beetstra, No, instead we made facebookcorewwwi.onion to discuss just this URI itself. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 05:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Koavf, exactly, because the .onion is independently notable. I’m sorry, but I don’t see that for these three (I may be mistaken, but I don’t see an article for a bbc .onion e.g.), and there is (next to) zero discussion showing that these sites’ .onion service is of particular interest in the articles (one mentions that they fund a tor project as well, but that is about it). The prose of their main articles does not seem to warrant a mention of their darkweb activities. I’m sorry, but I see here no need to whitelist these). Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

xvideos.com[edit source]

Per /Common requests#About, we would need an about-page or a full url of the index page. Can you please provide a suitable link? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Beetstra

should work. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

penang-traveltips.com[edit source]

As per previous listing on the Spam-blacklist and as suggested by Beetstra, posting here. I would like to use https:// www. penang-traveltips.com/francis-light-tomb.htm (I'm adding spaces here or it won't even allow me to save it here) if possible. I know it's not the most authoritative type of site, but together with other info I have which corroborates the researcher (Purdon) mentioned, it's the best I have for a particular bit of info at the moment. Similary, https:// www.penang-traveltips.com/biography-of-captain-francis-light.htm and https:// www.penang-traveltips.com/james-scott.htm would be useful. Any chance they could get whitelisted? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

ticketmaster.com[edit source]

I would like to use this as the source for uploading the image under fair-use for Allen Event Center. Pbrks (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

gofundme[edit source]

Please allow a citation to gofundme for only this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bellini. The GoFundMe page is literally the only place on the internet where this actor's illness has been reported. kstraka (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kstraka: two remarks, first: you ask for a ticketmaster.com link but talk about gofundme, can you please check. second: you are walking a very thin rope on BLP if theonly source on a illness is in a gofundme (which could be opened by anyone). Even if it was not a BLP, I would question whether this is then something worth including, is it encyclopedically relevant to include this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

omicsonline.org[edit source]

I would like to use this for this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMICS_Publishing_Group It's been in the article since 2017, but the spam blacklist caught it in my edit. The first webpage is cited for how much the company charges in publishing fees. The second webpage is just used in the infobox for their official website.TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27: for the second, as 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 03:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Template:WLRequestLink this is the organization's 'About Us' page. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@TheTechnician27: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

breitbart.com[edit source]

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 Wikiafripedia 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 Wikiafripedia 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)

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

ritualabuse.us[edit source]

ritualabuse.us: Linksearch en (https) (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikiafripedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.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)

Process questions aside, that site is not a reliable source for anything. There's no way it should ever be linked on Wikiafripedia. Guy (help!) 10:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@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)
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)

youtu.be/V5iLXnpPhZ8[edit source]

Hello Wikiafripedians, 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)

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)
The request is for use in a userbox, not in an article.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@SilentRevisions:  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)

petition.parliament.uk/archived[edit source]

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)

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)
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)
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. Wikiafripedia 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)
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)
@Robertm25: Not done .. this was already done as https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)

sciencepublishinggroup.com[edit source]

Needed for WAP: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)

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

yourstory.com[edit source]

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)

 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)

supermemo.guru[edit source]

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)

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

cbronline.com/news/fire-os-google[edit source]

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)

neighborhoodarchive.com[edit source]

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)

I see the history of spamming now. Then, I request the following to be whitelisted:
Thank you. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 05:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

spinninggrillers.com[edit source]

I am not sure why this page is blocked from being listed on Wikiafripedia, As the company representer, we have not done any unethical activity on Wikiafripedia. We never add any link to Wikiafripedia. But still, I found a few resources regarding the advertising presented on Wikiafripedia, 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 (talkcontribs) 06:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

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)
@Gurvindersin:  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)

econlib.org[edit source]

Template:WLRequestLink

Template:WLRequestLink

I was making edits to the Bryan Caplan page, and many of his writting are on econlib.org. However, the website seems to be blacklisted. econlib being blocked makes it difficult to cite articles, which Caplan has written, on his own page.

I understand that econlib can be seen as often supporting specific ideological positions over others, however, I am only using these sources to cite Bryan Caplan describing Ben Bernanke as an influence on his microeconomic thinking (which is different than using econlib to back an ideological positon); these articles cannot be found anywhere else.

GoldwaterMan1771 (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that pimping Bryan Caplan was a core part of the paid spamming that got the site blacklisted in the first place. Guy (help!) 01:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

scarletstudy.gq[edit source]

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

Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)[edit source]

Template:Messagebox