MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2021/05

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

Request regarding parimatch[edit]

The "parimatch" website should be whitelisted at least to be used on its own wiki page about Parimatch (company). I wanted to fix the link in that article about Indian branch of Parimatch company, but it is blacklisted. So, I think that to allow to use "parimatch" weblinks on the page about Parimatch itself is not so bad idea. I don't know if it's possible to whitelist the usage of a certain website for a particular wikipedia page, but if yes, then the wikipedia page about Parimatch company will benefit because it has right now at least one false link which cannot be fixed because of a blacklist. Link I suggest for whitelisting: www.in.parimatch.com.

--KokoLubat (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KokoLubat: per MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#The_official_homepage_of_the_subject_of_a_page, 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 11:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: I considered this one concerning India branch of parimatch: www.in.parimatch.com/en/ --KokoLubat (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: hey, did my request about whitelisting of (in.parimatch.com) succeed? I didn't hear for a while. Just interesting. Thanks! --KokoLubat (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KokoLubat: Intended to look at it, but needed to be on another computer (access). No, that still allows also deeper linking. I fail to find a good about page or something else that cannot be appended upon. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request regarding kickstarter[edit]

Thoug the site has a Kickstarter article, here it is blacklisted. thank you for your time.

Lotje (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lotje, we will not whitelist the domain, which specific link do you need (see instructions at top of page). Dirk Beetstra T C 05:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra you will surely have your reasons not to whitelisting is, but then again I wonder why there is an article on it with a link, shouldn't that be removed then? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lotje, kickstarter links are often used for soapboxing: 'click [here] to donate to the kickstarter project'. Even when in good faith, those are bad edits that we do not allow. When a kickstarter is successful and worth mentioning on Wikipedia, it often has independent references. All in all, there is not often a reason to link to kickstarter pages at all. However, there are exceptions (e.g. the kickstarter itself may be notable as a subject) which case we gladly whitelist the specific link.
if the link is there, then it may have been in use under good cause. We tend to remove blacklisted links, but not the ones that are used as a proper reference. Pages generally work find with blacklisted links on them, you can normally edit them. In this case a 'subject specialist' should evaluate the case, and either get the link whitelisted now, or remove the link as an unsuitable reference (and replace it with a proper, secondary, source if possible). Dirk Beetstra T C 08:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dirk Beetstra, you made my day cause I learned something today :-) Lotje (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Main page of Expekt.com[edit]

expekt.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: Expekt.com

I noticed this article seems to only have a spam link under the external links. For an article on the actual site, we should be able to link to it. - SimonP (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SimonP: per MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#The_official_homepage_of_the_subject_of_a_page, 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 22:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

econlog.econlib.org[edit]

Moot as article deleted by AfD. Guy (help! - typo?) 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'd like to restore the references from this revision:

  • econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/the_ideological.html (already whitelisted)
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/06/two_tries_at_th.html
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/07/the_conservativ.html
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/07/religious_turin.html
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/07/judge_the_relig.html
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: econlog.econlib.org/archives/2013/06/a_hawk-dove_ide.html

I don't think this domain should be on the blacklist at all, but since my request for that was declined, whitelisting the blog's subdomain would be ideal. If that's not possible either, then just these 5 links. — Omegatron (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omegatron, this is a thing made up by Bryan Caplan, who has been spammed to all hell on Wikipedia, and all the references are to "econlib" despite his association with them (so they are not independent). I'm stunned that we even have an article. It was basically a blog post and the idea has close to zero traction in the literature despite its assiduous promotion. Why would we need half a dozen links to a think-tank, rather than just one, which is already arguably too many? Guy (help! - typo?) 19:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JzG: Yeah, I was surprised we didn't have an article, so I reverted the previous deletion. I understand that the domain was being spammed in the past, but that doesn't make the links any less informative about the facts they're being used to reference. Lots of things mentioned on blogs are notable.
For the record, I'm not a paid spammer, I'm not familiar with this domain or blog, I'm not libertarian, I'd never heard of Bryan Caplan before reverting this article, but I had heard of the ideological Turing test before this, multiple times. It sounds like you've had a bad experience with the spammers, or maybe just personally dislike Caplan/libertarians, but try to see this from the perspective of a Wikipedia reader who wants to know more about this topic that they've heard of before? — Omegatron (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Omegatron, OK. The problem with the previous article is that it was created by a spammer promoting Caplan and the Liberty Fund. That sets off the red flags, and is also why this site is blacklisted (we had routine material like Areopagitica represented as "published by" the Online Library of Liberty, and spammers were replacing Gutenberg and other neutral sources with this site). It was blatant WP:REFSPAM and done for ideological and commercial reasons. Yes, their presentation is slick and easy to read. That's the whole point: to suck in people interested in a subject, and make an ideological site, their go-to. It's Newsmax for economics.
I have no issue with a genuinely sourced article based on mainstream academic work, but as a notional philosophy topic we can't be using LessWrong, Patheos or primary sourced bert blogs and think-tanks for this, it's entirely against NPOV to rely on in-universe sources for a thing invented from whole cloth by a libertarian activist with virtually no outside scrutiny. Even the sources you've now added don't amount to a significant literature on the topic. Compare this with the actual Turing test, which has real weight. All Caplan did was apply a catchy brand to existing thought (which, to be fair, is on-brand: it's what right-wing think tanks are for, making the extreme, especially, seem not only obvious but widely supported and indeed incontrovertible - that's how the fringe judicial philosophy of "originalism" was mainstreamed by the Federalist Society into a qualifying test for Republican-appointed judges).
X was proposed by minor figure Y in Year, source, minor figure's blog proposing it in Year, is not how Wikipedia sourcing is supposed to go. Nor should we be succumbing to the circular referencing used by think tanks to inflate the importance of the things they promote. That is how the entire climate change denialism shit show happened. Let's not pretend that bad-faith arguments are in good faith, when sourcing Wikipedia articles.
Frankly I think you'd have been better staring afresh, rather than resurrecting a spam article. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please allow archive.org links to old content from faqs.org[edit]

I wanted to fix the broken link in the second reference in the article about Dave the Resurrector but could not, apparently because any mention of FAQs.org, even within a link to another site, is blocked. (For what it's worth, the latest Archive.org mirrored copy with the actual content is https://web.archive.org/web/20140127005825/http://www.f*a*q*s.org/faqs/usenet/cancel-faq/appendix/ where you will have to remove the asterisks.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22faqs.org%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 currently finds 357 Wikipedia articles which contain this text, the vast majority of which are probably links to the site.

Where these links are now broken, it would be useful to be able to resurrect them. I have no insight into which FAQs.org pages have been removed over the years; many links to the site still work for the time being, although it has apparently come under irresponsible management at some point.

For context, this site used to be the de facto official repository of Usenet FAQs, and it continues to host some of that legacy content.

 era (Talk | History) 09:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eeera: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Can you please test whether this works? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist specific URLs from Kickstarter.com for a Sandbox[edit]

kickstarter.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
I am wanting to start work on a semi-large article called Pebble (watch), which I think needs a rewrite in order to correctly discuss its subject, as I noted in the talk page. In order to work on this over multiple days, I am attempting to copy it into a sandbox in my userspace here in order to not affect the main article while being able to iterate on it. However, I cannot save the sandbox page because approved references in the original Wikipedia article include web pages from kickstarter.com. I would like this sandbox page to be whitelisted from links to kickstarter so I can work on the original article there. I'm kinda new to this, so I hope I'm doing this correctly! Known URLs affected:

  • www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android/posts/400063
  • www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android/posts/206882
  • www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper-watch-for-iphone-and-android/posts/207595
  • www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-time-awesome-smartwatch-no-compromises
  • www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-2-time-2-and-core-an-entirely-new-3g-ultra
  • www.kickstarter.com/projects/getpebble/pebble-2-time-2-and-core-an-entirely-new-3g-ultra/posts/1752929
  • www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-time-awesome-smartwatch-no-compromises/updates

While it would be helpful for these urls to be whitelisted, I would like to ask (if possible) for the domain kickstarter.com to be whitelisted for the aforementioned Sandbox page as well as for the original Wikipedia article, Pebble (watch), as Kickstarter was core to the Pebble's history. Thanks! :) ~the.one.and.the.only~ (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~the.one.and.the.only~, that would be a terrible idea. These are primary affiliated and heavily promotional sources, any significant information will be reflected in reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I agree that better sources other than kickstarter should be found. The primary reason of this request was to move a copy of the article to a sandbox on my user page so that I can work on some major editing over time, iterating and improving it before I make any changes that affect the main article. The URLs listed above are already in the main article, so either editors before me got exceptions approved for these sites, or kickstarter was not in a blacklist at the time. Wouldn't it be counterproductive to remove existing references before I begin editing? Let me know if there is some other way I should go about this - I'm open to suggestions!... ~the.one.and.the.only~ (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~the.one.and.the.only~, just obfuscate or comment out. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@~the.one.and.the.only~: no Declined just comment them out, or work on the article in mainspace. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

libgen.life forum post by founder for reference[edit]

libgen.life: 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

The Library Genesis has had repeated disputes over the project URLs, I would like to reference a post by the founder of Library Genesis on the libgen.life forums. The libgen.life domain is a forum for discussing the project which is caught by the \blibgen\b regex but does not host Library Genesis content. Here is the specific post by the founder I would like to reference:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: libgen.life/viewtopic.php?p=80161#p80161

Soapwort (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

libgen.life forum post by founder for reference[edit]

libgen.life: 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

The Library Genesis has had repeated disputes over the project URLs, I would like to reference a post by the founder of Library Genesis on the libgen.life forums. The libgen.life domain is a forum for discussing the project which is caught by the \blibgen\b regex but does not host Library Genesis content. Here is the specific post by the founder I would like to reference:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: libgen.life/viewtopic.php?p=80161#p80161

Soapwort (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart Author[edit]

Request whitelist of this specific url for article Draft:Dustin Stockton.

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: breitbart.com/author/dustin-stockton/

This is not being used as a citation for any story... simply being used to cite that he was a reporter for Breitbart News. DoctorTexan (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribune[edit]

It is a local newspaper that contains accurate and verified information. Kindly remove it from the blacklist Uriyah Unknown (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uriyah Unknown, please read instructions at the top, you are here requesting to remove from Whitelist,  Defer to Local blacklist Dirk Beetstra T C 16:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion[edit]

Onlyfans[edit]

onlyfans.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
I request a whitelist of the site's homepage to add to the infobox of Onlyfans.

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: onlyfans.com

aeschylus (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeschylus: per MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#The_official_homepage_of_the_subject_of_a_page, 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 05:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aeschylus: no Declined, https://onlyfans.com/about already whitelisted for this function. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist the topwar.ru page on the 5TDF engine for a draft[edit]

topwar.ru: 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 A whitelist is kindly asked for in order for the Draft:5TDF to be successfully published, as the aforementioned site contains the most accurate information about the subject. belg (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BelgianFried: no Declined, first, whitelisting the whole site would negate the blacklisting so we would never do that. Secondly, this was blacklisted per MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2020#State_sponsored_fake_news, this is a fake news site. If this is the most accurate information about the subject, then we should really consider the contents of the draft. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Malta Genealogy[edit]

I have made an edit on the page Edgar Atheling stating that a minor Italian family claims descent from him. This page is unreliable, and in my edits I use this to show how unlikely this is.

I would like this page to be allowed as a source for this one article. MCMax05 (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MCMax05, please read instructions at top of this page and then make a post in the right way in the right place, we don’t understand you like this. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock from spam list[edit]

Respected Admin,

I am the owner of my website FreakToFit. Few days before I was citing few articles for information in your wikipedia site as there was less information. But on one day itself I put so much citation that you thought I was trying to promote my content. But its not the truth. I have a fitness and health website which is fully knowledge base and doesn't contains any promotional material. When I was surfing through few of the articles on your panel I saw few lacks of information, thereby I started to putting the info and doing citation. But since it was over doing you have thought I have misusing the panel and thereby promotion.

But its not that sir. I have enclosed a screenshot of my website so that you can have a look. My request to you sir it will be extremely grateful if you please unblock my page freaktofit. Looking for a positive response Uttamwiki23 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. You've spammed this link with dozens of IPs, and several named accounts which were clearly you. You then attempted to add this completely unrelated link to Uttam Kumar three days ago. There is absolutely no chance this will be removed from the blacklist, and I've blocked this account as an obvious sock. Please use one of your prior accounts to request an unblock before making any future edits. Kuru (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Facebook onion[edit]

facebookwkhpilnemxj7asaniu7vnjjbiltxjqhye3mhbshg7kx5tfyd.onion: 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

Facebook has launched a new v3 onion address which replaces the old one. All onions must be whitelisted, hence this request.

https://www.facebook.com/facebookcorewwwi/posts/3727741430665883 https://www.facebook.com/onion-service

For use on Facebook onion address page

Deku-shrub (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deku-shrub: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2021/05&oldid=1028367829"