MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

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

Archives (current)→

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    The Spam-whitelist page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist and the local spam-blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (web pages to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to reblock), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

    Please enter your requests at the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and not at the very bottom of the page. Sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

    Also in your request, please include the following:

    1. The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
    2. The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
    3. An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
    4. If the site you're requesting is listed at /Common requests, please include confirmation that you have read the reason why requests regarding the site are commonly denied and that you still desire to proceed with your request

    Important: You must provide a full link to the specific web page you want to be whitelisted (leave out the http:// from the front; otherwise you will not be able to save your edit to this page). Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar with nothing after the / character) are likely to be denied. If you wish to have a site fully unblocked please visit the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

    Note: Do not request links to be whitelisted where you can reasonably suspect that the material you want to link to is in violation of copyright (see WP:LINKVIO). Such requests will likely be summarily rejected.

    There is no automated notification system in place for the results of requests, and you will not be notified when your request has a response. You should therefore add this page to your personal watch list, to your notifications through the subscribe feature, or check back here every few days to see if there is any progress on it; in particular, you should check whether administrators have raised any additional queries or expressed any concerns about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in the request being denied.

    Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|1219149638#section_name}}

    Note that requests from new or unregistered users are not usually considered.

    Admins: Use seth's tool to search the spamlists.

    Indicators
    Request completed:
     Done {{Done}}
     Stale {{StaleIP}}
     Request withdrawn {{withdrawn}}
    Request declined:
    no Declined {{Declined}}
     Not done {{Notdone}}
    Information:
     Additional information needed {{MoreInfo}}
    information Note: {{TakeNote}}


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

    If you have a source that you would like to add to the spam-whitelist, but you are uncertain that it meets Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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]

    www.verywellhealth.com[edit]

    1. This article on myolysis is approachably written, but more importantly for a medical source, not making any extraordinary claims, nor at odds with other reliable sources - seemingly passing WP:MEDRS for at least limited use.
    2. It would benefit our article on Myolysis

    PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this really a WP:MEDRS? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a WP:MEDPOP, but it's an ok website. It has lots of nice articles. - Manifestation (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically, yes - it seems usable for uncontroversial information, in accordance with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources. I provided more detail on why I think it's usable at this RSN thread. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    More to the point... this domain was blacklisted in the first place for spam purposes, not for reliability issues. Shouldn't all that's needed for a whitelist request be to show it's not being used as spam? Have I not provided enough proof of reliability? Why is reliability being (apparently) rigorously scrutinized here, and not at WP:RSN? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything that even approaches WP:MEDRS is scrutinized rigorously everywhere on Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is VeryWell on the spam-blacklist when it has never been spammed? - Manifestation (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, but I've shown that this site may be used explicitly per the written guidance in WP:MEDRS. How much longer do I have to wait for someone to approve this? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown @Pppery since you two appear to be the only ones patrolling this page, could one of you review this request more thoroughly, and provide an answer? It's frustrating to wait this long in a queue with no path forward. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    For the King kickstarter[edit]

    • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.kickstarter.com/projects/fortheking/for-the-king-0
    1. I am requesting that a specific page on Kickstarter be whitelisted if possible, obviously not the whole site because solicitation concerns. The page in question is for a video game, For the King, that was released in 2018, and the Kickstarter campaign itself ended in 2016, so donations can no longer be given as far as I can tell. Because the game is an indie title and comes from a developer that to my knowledge has not released anything else, there are few sources of information regarding the game's creators and development. The page I am requesting be whitelisted contains a ton of valuable information that I cannot find in other sources. I used the information from the Kickstarter page in the Development section of the article, but it all remains unsourced and I would like to ensure all information in the article is sourced. I was directed to this page after bringing up the issue on the TeaHouse forum. Additionally I would like to make it clear I am in no way affiliated with the developer, game, or anything related to the two.
    2. It would benefit the article on For the King, For the King II, and potentially other pages pertaining to the developer and future releases.

    Thank you for your time! MrGoldenfold007 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @MrGoldenfold007: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. But do keep in mind that it's generally best to rely on secondary sources where possible and details found only in primary sources can easily be fancruft or undue weight. --* Pppery * it has begun... 19:57, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I did try to go for primarily secondary sources, especially with regards to critical reception, but like I said there just wasn't much in terms of the development of the game from those secondary sources. The reference only pertains to a single paragraph within the article and is 1 of 13 references so it shouldn't have undue weight either as far as I can tell. MrGoldenfold007 (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    business-sale.com[edit]

    1. business-sale.com (Business Sale Report Ltd) is caught by the generic mediawiki rule "-sale\.com\b", so is not individually blocked, so presumably has no past negative record. It has 31 current WP.en uses in the External links search and is whitelisted by ja.wikipedia.org. It is apparently the website of a 30 year old British company that sells distressed businesses, stating it has done £6.5 billion of trade in its 30 years, so seems a quite substantial reputable company. In improving Mesh Computers I found it had the best information on the demise of that company, compatible with other cites, but with better info on the sale of its brand name for continued use (so helped explain reincarnation using same logo & website!).
    2. Ideally I would like the whole website whitelisted, as it is a generally useful cite resource for helping explain when a company with WP article comes to its demise (and still has 31 uses in WP). Failing that the specific URL above (I have left commented-out cites in Mesh Computers for now).

    Thanks, Rwendland (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Rwendland: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 02:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the entire domain since it seems to be a clear false positive, but I also noticed that many of the pre-existing links are dead. The short shelf life of these links may pose a problem and adding archived versions may be a good idea. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The particular link I am using for Mesh Computers is nearly 13 years old, so they seem to have a pretty good lifetime. I suspect the dead pre-existing links must be very old. I don't plan to try to fix these dead pre-existing links, leaving those article editors who think it worthwhile to try to sort out an archived version if deemed worth the trouble! Cheers. Rwendland (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    brautiganlibrary.xyz/download/holeton-lumber-world1.pdf[edit]

    brautiganlibrary.xyz/download/holeton-lumber-world2.pdf[edit]

    brautiganlibrary.xyz/dig.html#manuscripts2019[edit]

    1. This is the new URL home for the Brautigan Library (referenced in Clark_County_Historical_Museum where I (Richard_Holeton) have several publications referenced in the article Richard_Holeton. The old URL is no good and I was trying to update the URLs. So right now it mainly benefits my page at Richard_Holeton but likely will benefit others in the future that reference the Brautigan Digital Library which has moved to this domain for all its content. Without these URL updates, someone would need to edit the article to remove the dead references, which would lower the quality of the article.
    2. I see the ".xyz" is generally blacklisted. All I know is that the curator of the Brautigan Library is legitimately using this URL for a large and important online set of literary resources for scholars and authors.
    3. Thank you much for looking at this.

    --Richard Holeton (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is clearly not WP:RS and is promotional. Likely, the dead links just need removing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for looking at this. I guess you could say my request is "promotional" insofar as I'm the subject of the page and have an interest in it being factually correct and not contain dead links. But really it's just a correction of the dead URLs that someone else has put in the article as links to publications. The literary resources available at brautiganlibrary.xyz vastly exceed a couple of things of mine so represent a large public good. Richard Holeton (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Also I see that many other ".xyz" subdomains have been whitelisted. Richard Holeton (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Used promotionally or not, the website includes a manuscript catalogue. As these are unicates housed only in that institution, it is a reliable source for statements made about those manuscripts and likely the only source of information on most of them. I don't see any harm in whitelisting the website. And the only reason it was blacklisted is because of its domain, so there is no justification for excluding this domain from a Wikipedia article, especially as regards its catalogues. Ivan (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    criminal-lawyers.com.au/offences/affray[edit]

    1. This page should be whitelisted because it is a legitimate source of legal information in Victoria, Australia. It has comprehensive information on the offence of Affray and, most importantly, it has information that cannot be found on other sources (such as when the offence of Affray shifted from being a common law offence to a criminal offence in Victoria). Without it as a reference, the date on when Affray changed from a common law offence to a criminal offence in Victoria can be deemed invalid.
    2. I would like to use this link on the Wikipedia page for Affray. The said Wikipedia page will benefit from the link as it contains unique information that cannot be found anywhere else.
    3. The link I would like to request to be added is www.criminal-lawyers.com.au/offences/affray | {{LinkSummary|criminal-lawyers.com.au}}

    SandyGray (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • That same information is surely available on a website that is less spammy. It's an ad for a lawfirm. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I actually tried to find other sources that mention the year as being 2017 when Affray shifted from being a common law offence to a criminal offence in Victoria but couldn't find any. I feel the year when the shift happened is significant that's why it needs to be referenced. But I leave it to the moderators. SandyGray (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined There are 6 current sources in the Australian section of that article. I don't think adding one spammy link is going to help verify the information contained within, so... no. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    kencarson.xyz[edit]

    1. This page should be whitelisted because it's the official website of rapper Ken Carson. Other rappers have their websites displayed in their infobox (e.g., Future and Young Thug). It seems like it would be good if Ken Carson could similarly have a clickable link to his website in his infobox. I'm honestly not sure why this site is blacklisted, but I tried to make the link clickable and couldn't save the edit since the site is blacklisted (it looked like it might be a block for any *.xyz site?). palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 05:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right that the entire .xyz TLD is blacklisted. I'll leave this for a day or two in case anything unexpected pops up, but intend to grant this request. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it, thanks! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 15:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Palindromesemordnilap: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 15:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks! palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 01:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    scroggins.xyz[edit]

    1. This page should not be whitelisted because it is my personal site link for my own user page. TYSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micah J II (talk • contribs) 06:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done That's not a compelling reason for whitelisting; Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659066[edit]


    1. This page should be whitelisted because it relates solely to an article (Health and Equality Acts (Amendment) Bill) which the petition seeks for to be passed, and in the article on the Bill it says that there is previous petitions on the substance of the Bill, and is therefore relevant to establish a pattern of fact. UnicornSherbert (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      no Declined We should not link to active petitions, especially ones just started today, per WP:NOTADVOCACY. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from Whitelist (web pages or link patterns to re-block)[edit]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=1219149638"