Brustopher (talk | contribs) →avoiceformen.com Roosh V Interview: very belated signing of the request |
→energytracker.asia/about: thanks! Tag: Reply |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Spam-whitelist header}} |
{{Spam-whitelist header}} |
||
{{ |
{{admin backlog}} |
||
{{NOINDEX}} |
{{NOINDEX}} |
||
{{YesAutosign}} |
|||
<div id="Proposed additions"/> |
|||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |
|||
|archiveprefix=MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/ |
|||
|format=Y/m |
|||
|age=1000 |
|||
|header={{archive}} |
|||
|headerlevel=3 |
|||
}} |
|||
{{anchor|Proposed additions}} |
|||
== Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards == |
== Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards == |
||
Line 15: | Line 22: | ||
{{messagebox |
{{messagebox |
||
|text=This section is for proposing that a web page be whitelisted; add new entries at the '''''bottom''''' of this '''section'''. Completed requests will be marked with an appropriate [[MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist/Indicators|Indicator]] then [[/Archives|archived]]. |
|text=This section is for proposing that a web page be whitelisted; add new entries at the '''''bottom''''' of this '''section'''. Completed requests will be marked with an appropriate [[MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist/Indicators|Indicator]] then [[/Archives|archived]]. |
||
;Instructions to requesters<nowiki>:</nowiki> |
|||
; Instructions to requesters<nowiki>:</nowiki> |
|||
# Explain '''why''' the site should be whitelisted. |
# Explain '''why''' the site should be whitelisted. |
||
# Explain '''which articles''' would benefit from the addition of the link. |
# Explain '''which articles''' would benefit from the addition of the link. |
||
Line 21: | Line 29: | ||
#* Please use the basic URL so that there is no link (www.google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). |
#* Please use the basic URL so that there is no link (www.google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). |
||
#* Please add a {{tlx|LinkSummary|example.org}} (replace example.org with the ''domain'' your specific url resides on, and remove the 'www.' part, and everything following the domain-name). This inserts a set of links that helps in finding relevant information and related discussion on the requested site. |
#* Please add a {{tlx|LinkSummary|example.org}} (replace example.org with the ''domain'' your specific url resides on, and remove the 'www.' part, and everything following the domain-name). This inserts a set of links that helps in finding relevant information and related discussion on the requested site. |
||
''If the above information is not provided, expect your request to be declined.''}} |
|||
<!-- PLEASE ADD NEW ENTRIES TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST (bottom of this section) --> |
|||
<!-- PLEASE SIGN YOUR ENTRY WITH FOUR TILDES: ~~~~ : --> |
|||
''If the above information is not provided, expect your request to be declined.'' |
|||
=== YouTube video ''World's Oldest Science Journal - Objectivity #17'' === |
|||
* youtu.be/QE0DCaw7EDY |
|||
{{LinkSummary|youtube.com}} |
|||
PLEASE ADD NEW ENTRIES TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST (bottom of this section) |
|||
This is a grand look at a staple of science: the first scientific journal, talked about by the president of the [[Royal Society]]. I am using it to describe how Cassini and Hooke may have seen a shadow rather than the Great Red Spot. |
|||
PLEASE SIGN YOUR ENTRY WITH FOUR TILDES: ~~<nowiki/>~~}} |
|||
<span class="plainlinks" style="color:#27B;font-family:'Segoe UI','Source Sans Pro','Open Sans',sans-serif;font-size:1.2em;font-variant:small-caps;">—[[User:Supuhstar|<span style="color:#27B;"> Supuhstar</span>]][[User_talk:Supuhstar|<span style="color:#27B;"> * </span>]]—</span> 21:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{declined}}; youtu.be is blocked as a URL shortener but the full URL is not. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 14:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== |
=== www.verywellhealth.com === |
||
*{{WLRequestLink|verywellhealth.com/myolysis-5189197}} |
|||
*examiner.com/article/freedom-pro-baseball-league-may-be-latest-arizona-independent-casualty |
|||
*{{Linksummary|verywellhealth.com}} |
|||
*examiner.com/article/freedom-league-to-return-2015-says-joe-sperle |
|||
# 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. |
|||
{{LinkSummary|examiner.com}} |
|||
# It would benefit our article on [[Myolysis]] |
|||
[[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 14:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: Is this really a [[WP:MEDRS]]? [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It's a [[WP:MEDPOP]], but it's an ok website. It has lots of nice articles. - <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Manifestation|Manifestation]] <small>([[User talk:Manifestation|talk]])</small></span> 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#verywell_Health_on_the_spam_blacklist this RSN thread.] [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::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]]? [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 15:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Anything that even approaches WP:MEDRS is scrutinized rigorously everywhere on Wikipedia. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 07:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Why is VeryWell on the spam-blacklist when it has never been spammed? - <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Manifestation|Manifestation]] <small>([[User talk:Manifestation|talk]])</small></span> 09:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::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? [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 13:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Dennis Brown|Dennis Brown]] @[[User:Pppery|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. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 13:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::A lengthy discussion of Verywell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#User_Manifestation occurred in 2020]. The thread was opened by [[User:Beetstra]] in hopes of getting review of a request by [[User:Manifestation]]. It is worth noting that only a link to one single Verywell article is proposed here for whitelisting: {{green|www.verywellhealth.com/myolysis-5189197}}. A ping to [[User:Beetstra]] is appropriate. He has done a lot of work on spam so he might be able to offer advice about any spam issues that would apply to this link. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 17:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: For context, that one link was whitelisted by the late {{noping|Spinningspark}}, during a time when there were no active admins monitoring requests on this page at all, so doesn't indicate anything other than his specific views. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 17:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{tq|"The thread was opened by [[User:Beetstra]] in hopes of getting review of a request by [[User:Manifestation]]."}} |
|||
::::No, that thread was opened by Beetstra to harass me into silence. No one came to my defense at the time. Verywell remains banned to this day, for no good reason. However, on a more positive note, Beetstra did [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist&diff=1054109675 whitelist one url] from [[Verywell Mind]]. So maybe that site isn't so bad after all, right? |
|||
::::A second url, from [[Verywell Health]], was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist&diff=909456674 added] by the late {{noping|Spinningspark}}, as [[User:Pppery|Pppery]] already pointed out. - <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Manifestation|Manifestation]] <small>([[User talk:Manifestation|talk]])</small></span> 18:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::That AN thread went a bit off the rails. It started with Beetstra pointing out a personal attack from Manifestation, and only happened to meander its way toward discussing verywell's usability. What I did see, though, were 2 users who provided specific use cases for verywell that were shut down by the blacklisting. Whitelisting wasn't a preferred option for either of them - SandyGeorgia said they hardly knew about whitelisting at all, and wbm outright calling the whitelist one of the most unpleasant aspects of WP. Add me to that group of editors less than impressed with the whitelist process, for how little attention my request has gotten (before asking at AN). |
|||
:::Putting that aside, though, I'd like to process ''this one whitelist request'' before diving into a whole 'nother discussion about verywell as a whole. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 19:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::It appears that three verywell* links were added to the Spam blacklist [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2018&diff=prev&oldid=871713952 here in December 2018] by [[User:JzG]]. (verywellhealth.com, verywellmind.com and verywellfamily.com). The request was posted at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2018#verywellmind.com this page]. Replying to [[User:Manifestation]]: if you believe that [[User:Beetstra]] has been harassing you you should make a complaint in the appropriate forum. Beetstra introduces his comments in that thread with "Time for some independent review", which is why I quoted him as posting for review. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#User_Manifestation 2020 thread] does not show you at your best, with your references to 'lying' and so forth. A equally unpleasant exchange occurs in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2020#Verywell%2C_2 this thread] from May 2020. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 20:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, those two had a ''couple'' of unpleasant exchanges 4 years ago. But I'm hoping we can discuss my request on its owm merit, without any more unpleasantness. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 20:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::What merits would those be? These are unreliable sources that were spammed. They have no evident value to this project. The fact of an unreliable source carrying an article that is not packed with fringe claims does not magically transform it into a reliable source, and the sourcing standard for medical content ([[WP:MEDRS]]) is ''substantially'' higher than for routine content. If the content you want to include is not published in a MEDRS source then it doesn't get included. If it is in a MEDRS source then use that. It seems pretty simple to me. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 11:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::On what basis have you decided verywell is broadly an unreliable source? There have been ''very few'' previous discussions about verywell anywhere on WP, and the [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Dotdash RSP entry that technically covers verywell] is more about their parent company. Even still, that RSP entry lists that family of sources as "no consensus" on reliability, and says {{tq|Editors find the quality of articles published by About.com to be inconsistent}}. That sure sounds to me like some articles are high-quality, others are not, and deciding if one counts as an [[WP:RS]] is subject to common sense. |
|||
:::::::More to the point, verywell's article on myolysis seems usable for uncontroversial information, explicitly in accordance with [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources]]. And other discussions, which EdJohnston linked to, have shown that I'm not the only editor who judges some of their articles to be reliable and worth citation. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 14:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::@[[User:JzG|JzG]] since you've replied to others below, would you care to engage with or rebut any my points here? [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I did. I disagree with you. Not much more to say, really. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::There's plenty more you could say. You could provide any examples at all of articles of theirs you're characterizing as "advertorial" or "written by AI." You could clarify why you consider the main purpose of verywell to be selling products as opposed to simply being popular press, when [https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-vacuum-cleaner/ other RS don't get that treatment]. You could clarify which part of the [[WP:MEDRS]] standard you believe this source fails, considering I've pointed out where in that guideline it's allowed. But of course, you don't have to answer to any of that, and can bow out as you like. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 20:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{hat|Collapsing personal attacks}} |
|||
::::::{{tq|"The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1037#User_Manifestation 2020 thread] does not show you at your best"}} |
|||
::::::How DARE you?!?! How can you have the audacity to write something like that?!?! Did you actually READ the threads? Did you SEE the stupidity? Not just by Beetstra, but by others too! |
|||
::::::Look, let me just give you ONE example, and you tell me what you think, ok? In [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2020#Verywell%2C 2|this thread]], on 5 May 2020 09:38, Beetstra [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=954983524&diffonly=1 wrote] this: |
|||
:::::::''I still believe it ''[Verywell]'' was justly banned, it was abused by multiple editors in a case relating to copyvio material. It was a just way of stopping that abuse.'' |
|||
I'd like these two articles from examiner.com to be white listed so I can use them as sources relating to the demise of the [[Freedom Pro Baseball League]]. This sports reporter seems to be reliable and his articles feature quotes and interviews related to the status of the league that I can not find in any other online sources. I had trouble even listing the links here for review so i had to remove the http:// part but you can see the content of the requested links. I know there have been issues with this website but I'd like these particular articles approved. [[User:Spanneraol|Spanneraol]] ([[User talk:Spanneraol|talk]]) 22:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*Have you read [[/Common requests]]? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes.. I'm asking for these two pages... not the entire website. [[User:Spanneraol|Spanneraol]] ([[User talk:Spanneraol|talk]]) 14:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:::So you'll be aware that examiner.com is user-authored with no editorial oversight and not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] then. {{declined}} [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[User:Stifle|Stifle]], did you even look at the two pages I asked for or my reasons for wanting them? Or do you just summarily decline things cause you feel like it? Thats just a shitty reason you know. Some of the sports reporting on there is very good and by decent writers. The writer of these articles is a credible source, look at his bio. Don't just reject things out of hand as there is no other place to find this info. [[User:Spanneraol|Spanneraol]] ([[User talk:Spanneraol|talk]]) 12:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yes, he wrote that. Beetstra, a decorated admin and prolific spam-fighter with years of experience, believes that blacklisting a website will somehow prevent people from copy-pasting text from that website into Wikipedia. And he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=955148882&diffonly=1 repeated] this claim the next day, in the same thread. |
|||
=== Fisheaters.com (One Page) - One Article: Entry "Traditional Catholicism" === |
|||
::::::Don't you think this is an immediate red flag? Doesn't this make it look like that something funny is going on? And this is just *one* example. His entire defense was nonsensical. Yet, for some reason, nobody interfered. - <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Manifestation|Manifestation]] <small>([[User talk:Manifestation|talk]])</small></span> 22:34, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Link summary|fisheaters.com}} |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
:::::::Calling other editors "stupid" is [[WP:NPA|against our policies]]. This is not the way to address a dispute with another editor. You need to behave yourself, Manifestation. [[User:Swatjester|<span style="color:red">⇒</span>]][[User_talk:Swatjester|<span style="font-family:Serif"><span style="color:black">SWAT</span><span style="color:goldenrod">Jester</span></span>]] <small><sup>Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!</sup></small> 22:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::{{re|Swatjester}} Why is Verywell banned? Why isn't it unbanned? - <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Manifestation|Manifestation]] <small>([[User talk:Manifestation|talk]])</small></span> 09:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Because it was spammed and is unreliable. Right now it has a load of advertorial that appears to have been written by AI, promoting expensive and generally useless products. The purpose of the site is sales, not information. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 11:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::: Agree that there is no good rationale for removing "verywell" sites from the blacklist for reasons already enumerated; that is, it's largely promotional, and most of the content does not meet [[WP:RS]]. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 12:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::Could you provide links to any verywellhealth sites where they're promoting products? Or ones written by AI? Their article on myolysis is neither of those, and is the purpose of my whitelist request. |
|||
::::::::::And the ''apparent'' purpose of Verywellhealth is to [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verywell provide health and wellness information by health professionals]. It's pretty apparent their main purpose is to be a consumer-friendly medical information website. They may leverage their popularity to recommend products and make commissions on sales - but [https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-vacuum-cleaner/ other RS do that too,] and we don't deprecate the entire site because of it. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 14:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::{{re|JzG|OhNoitsJamie}} Are we seeing the same website? Are we living in the same universe? What promotions?? Which products?? Which AI-content?? I have the home page of Verywell Health in front of me right now. Here are the first five articles on the front page as of 14:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC): |
|||
:::::::::::* How Does Cannabis Affect a Workout?<br />By Stephanie Brown | Published on April 16, 2024<br />Fact checked by Nick Blackmer |
|||
:::::::::::* 4 Health Benefits of Walking in the Rain, According to Experts<br />By Alyssa Hui | Updated on April 19, 2024<br />Fact checked by Nick Blackmer |
|||
:::::::::::* These Are the 8 Best Fruit and Veggie Skins to Eat<br />By Lauren Manaker MS, RDN, LD | Updated on April 19, 2024<br />Fact checked by Nick Blackmer |
|||
:::::::::::* COVID by the Numbers: Spring 2024<br />By Team Verywell Health | Updated on April 19, 2024<br />Fact checked by Marley Hall |
|||
:::::::::::* Flu By the Numbers: April 19, 2024<br />By Team Verywell Health | Updated on April 19, 2024<br />Fact checked by Angela Underwood |
|||
:::::::::::As can already be deduced from the titles, this is a [[popular press]] website. In terms of quality, it is similar to such sites as ''[[Psychology Today]]'', ''[[ScienceDaily]]'', ''[[Men's Health]]'', ''[[Woman's Day]]'', etc. These offer simplistic, mass-produced articles written in a simplistic language, intended for the general masses. In other words, not a reason to ban the site. - <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Manifestation|Manifestation]] <small>([[User talk:Manifestation|talk]])</small></span> 14:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::And I don't think that was the initial reason. The request was made by [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] a few days before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=872117489 retiring | being blocked]. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&end=2018-12-02&namespace=all&start=2018-11-25&tagfilter=&target=Jytdog&offset=&limit=500 Jytdog's contribution history for the day or so before requesting] I see several edit summaries saying "spam" or "spammy" where Jytdog removed cites of verywell*. Apparently some editors (some of whom were soon [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mservi68/Archive) blocked]) were adding cites recently. But no evidence was provided that the site is spam, i.e. what we're seeing is: edits are spam by Jytdog's definition, therefore the non-spam site is blacklisted. [[User:Peter Gulutzan|Peter Gulutzan]] ([[User talk:Peter Gulutzan|talk]]) 15:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::Thank you!! Finally someone who actually looks at the evidence. 😊 |
|||
:::::::::::::I'm not even sure that [[Special:Contributions/Dulanji Perera|Dulanji Perera]] (5 edits) and [[Special:Contributions/Dulanji P|Dulanji P]] (1 edit) are sockpuppets of [[Special:Contributions/Mservi68|Mservi68]] (2 edits). Their edits don't really resemble each other, and [[User talk:192.248.16.125|their IP address]] is a shared IP from [[Lanka Education and Research Network]]. However, based on this tiny little case, [[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mservi68|with a whopping three sock accounts]], three Verywell websites [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2018#verywellmind.com|were banned]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2018&diff=871713952 by User:JzG]. This was unjustifiable, but JzG and Beetstra do not care, because they don't like the Verywell sites. - <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Manifestation|Manifestation]] <small>([[User talk:Manifestation|talk]])</small></span> 18:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::::With all due respect, Peter has an idiosyncratic attitude to source reliability, based on many past discussions. You'd be better off asking at [[WP:RSN]]. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::Yes. Classic clickbait. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 21:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::If that's classic clickbait, then [[Clickbait]] contains some serious errors (e.g., "typically [[deceptive]], [[sensationalized]], or otherwise [[misleading]]", "an element of dishonesty, using enticements that do not accurately reflect the content being delivered", "A defining characteristic of clickbait is misrepresentation"). [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Question for [[User:Pppery]]: is there anything on this proposed-whitelisted page that is unique? Or is it just a convenient source that could reasonably be replaced by other non-blacklisted sources? [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::It shouldn't really matter if a source is unique in judging if it's worth using. Particularly medical sources - [[WP:MEDPOP]] says that popular press "sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English", and to "use common sense" to evaluate the quality of each individual article from sources like this. That guideline also recommends: "''One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source.''" So there is a legitimate use case for citing sources like verywell in tandem with more scientific, scholarly sources. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 14:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Given the apparent reluctance of others to whitelist this page, I had hoped to elicit an alternate way forward: either a new and strong argument for why this page should be whitelisted or alternatives that could be used. Taking a seeming argumentative stance with me, who came here by ''your ow request'' on another noticeboard, is not helpful. I'm out. [[User:DMacks|DMacks]] ([[User talk:DMacks|talk]]) 14:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Argumentative? You provided a pathway by which my whitelist request could be declined, and I provided relevant information from our policies in support. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 14:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::He asked for information that might lead to improving an article. You responded by arguing that he didn't need that information, because it would undermine your case to get what you want. That sounds like being argumentative to me. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Oppose''' PhotogenicScientist and Manifestation are trying very hard for this page without making a case for why it has to be ''this'' page and none else. If it's only on one site it probably doesn't fit the spirit of MEDRS. Recommend finding a non problematic source. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:Please, see my comment above re: [[WP:MEDPOP]]. There's nothing wrong with citing popular press like this, even if the information ''could'' be gleaned elsewhere. I'm not aware of any policy that says a source requested for whitelisting must be the ''only'' source able to be cited for specific information. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::I'm not sure why you're pushing so hard for this page to be whitelisted when by your admission, the info could come from elsewhere. The source is problematic per multiple established editors. Using a different one would be the best and most viable outcome here. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 13:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::I'm pushing for it to be used in the article because it is a plain-English summary of a medical procedure that is approachably written, and falls afoul of neither [[WP:RS]] nor [[WP:MEDRS]]. Many "established editors" have expressed concerns, but I feel nobody has actually engaged with my arguments to policy, or any of my responses. And if there is some rule that sources '''cannot''' be whitelisted if the information can come from elsewhere, nobody has pointed me to it - it seems to be just an unwritten (and imo detrimental) aspect of this whitelist process. |
|||
*:::This site is caught in a catch-22 between <u>reliability</u> and <u>spam</u> right now. It was deemed spam long ago, on evidence that wasn't clear (by Beetstra's admission). Then its reliability took a hit "due to persistent abuse," that only cited this one spam blacklisting. Now, when you try to discuss its reliability, you get sent to the spam list to get it whitelisted. And if you go to the spam whitelist, everyone goes back to questioning its reliability. It's been a very frustrating 3 weeks trying to work through this. |
|||
*:::I ask of you - please take a look at the article on myolysis. I can't link it, but the url is at the top of this request. Look it over, and see for yourself if you would consider it a reliable source. If you don't think it's reliable, I would <u>really</u> like to know why, so I can better calibrate on what this site expects in terms of reliability - because I've read RS and MEDRS six ways to sunday, and I don't see any issues with the source. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 13:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::OK, I'm coming here without an opinion either way, and I've done ask you asked, and read the entire article you linked at the top of this section. |
|||
*::::Is it reliable? Maybe. Has it been discussed at [[WP:RSN]]? |
|||
*::::Assuming it's reliable, I am having a hard time figuring out what information that article presents that cannot easily be found in other sources. The Wikipedia article on [[myolysis]] ''already'' presents (using your own words) "a plain-English summary of a medical procedure that is approachably written". What value would this pop-medical article add? I'm not seeing it. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::Thank you. I opened [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_434#verywell_Health_on_the_spam_blacklist this discussion on RSN] a while back. Before that, there had been very little discussion of verywellhealth. I summarized what I could glean from all past discussions in that RSN post. |
|||
*:::::Generally, I agree with you that this article is neither the ''best'' nor the ''only'' source where information on myolysis can come from. But in my evaluation, it seems like a fine source to use. I appear to be the only one who cares about our article on myolysis here - [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Myolysis I already expanded it quite a bit,] from rather unhelpful dab page to at least a short article. And I did so largely by citing what other sources I could find. But this article would be useful to fill in content gaps that aren't easily summarizable from other sources - such as a short sentence describing the usage of radiofrequency ablation. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 18:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::::''I ask of you - please take a look at the article on myolysis. I can't link it, but the url is at the top of this request. Look it over, and see for yourself if you would consider it a reliable source.'' |
|||
*::::I did, I came here from WP:AN as an utterly uninvolved admin as I don't think you/Manifest/Beestra and I have had anything but incidental interaction. Others have the standard admin interactions. While this may fit the letter of MEDPOP, I do not think this fits the spirit of what we need in medical articles. There must be better out there. I don't understand the two year (if I'm reading this right) push for this page when time, energy could be spent finding a better source. But we'll agree to disagree and while I oppose it, someone else may feel different. My read here though is there is a fairly strong consensus against it. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 01:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*:::::{{tq|There must be better out there.}} Therein lies the rub. Are you volunteering to find a better source yourself? Because I, in the course of putting in work on this article that nobody else seems to care about, have found a reliable-looking source that I think would improve the article. It is policy-compliant, and from reading the rules of the blacklist and whitelisting, I don't see any reason for it to be rejected. Maybe I could find a ''better'' source, and maybe I couldn't - but why is it for you to assign me to that task? Why let perfect be the enemy of "good enough?" If there's no solid reason to bar the use of this source except that "vibes are off," that just seems to me to be a terribly unfair outcome. |
|||
*:::::And for what it's worth, I've not spent 2 years pushing for this - it's been 3 weeks. And the only reason I've spent ''that long'' on it is because I see some value in the source, and I'm attempting to follow the proper protocol to cite it. It was simply an open tab during my research phase for that article - I saw value in it before I knew the whole domain was blacklisted, and I still see some value in it now. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 02:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}} |
|||
Well people, it is about time to wrap this up. Conclusion: some users believe it is perfectly ok to use the "spamlist" to block non-spam websites that don't adhere to their ridiculously high demands, quality-wise. |
|||
I am extremely disappointed by Wikipedia and the stupidity by certain people on it. Why not be honest about it? Why not say something like this: ''"I dislike this website, because it is commercial and it has sponsored content. It has mass-produced articles, written for the masses. Therefore, it should be banished from all use."'' |
|||
I'm writing to request that there be allowed a link to a page at fisheaters.com on the entry "Traditional Catholicism." FishEaters is one of the, if not the, oldest traditional Catholic websites on the internet, it's used in RCIA classes (especially those organized by priests of the FSSP), it's cited in books, newspapers, parish bulletins, and magazines. The page I would like to link to: fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html All varieties of traditional Catholics would find the site helpful and informative, and Wikipedia visitors wanting to research traditional Catholicism" would find that page a scholarly jumping-off point. Thanks. [[User:Schoemann|Schoemann]] ([[User talk:Schoemann|talk]]) 05:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Following this logic, *many* websites should be banned from Wikipedia. Technology, gaming, movies, science, history, DIY, beauty, travelling. And definitely, we should ban the tabloids, with each url requiring manual approval by an admin, resulting in a bureaucratic hell and a mountain of a backlog. |
|||
I've moved this request down toward the bottom so it won't get lost in the shuffle, and renamed the heading to be more in accord with the guidelines. I hope both of these things are okay. [[User:Schoemann|Schoemann]] ([[User talk:Schoemann|talk]]) 06:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:I say no to this, the domain was relentlessly spammed and there's likely to be a better source for anything of merit. The site is biased, as evidence the title of the very page requested: "traditional" rather than "traditionalist". Most Catholics are not of this view. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 09:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Some time ago, [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Daily Mail|it was decided]] to "deprecate" the ''[[Daily Mail]]'', a British tabloid. However, that site is not on the banlist, and [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html you can still link to it]. Indeed, on rare occasions, writers still do when they're running low on options while creating content. I am honestly mystified why people seem to think that Verywell, of all brands, is such an evil entity that its name should be cursed for all ages. |
|||
::I'm not sure I understand you, Guy. "Traditional" and "Traditionalist" mean the same thing in the Traditional/ist Catholic world. They're known colloquially as "trads." The entry I'm wanting to add it to is the entry "Traditionalist Catholicism", and it's a traditionalist Catholic website. I know that most Catholics aren't of that view, but traditional Catholics are, the entry in question is "Traditionalist Catholicism," and the website is called "FishEaters: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism". I don't think there'd be a better source for the topic of Traditional Catholicism. The site is one of the oldest traditional Catholic websites on the internet, and it's used by priests and catechists, has been cited in magazines and books. I think the only traditional Catholic website that is older is one made by someone who goes by the name"Father Moderator", but he's a sedevacantist, which most traditional Catholics aren't. The FishEaters website is also extremely comprehensive and well-written. There really isn't another site like it that I've seen, and I, myself, am a traditionalist Catholic and know pretty well what's available out there in this area. [[User:Schoemann|Schoemann]] ([[User talk:Schoemann|talk]]) 09:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
::I think that the site itself does provide good information and have never agreed to its being blacklisted. I also believe that the accusation of spamming is somewhat overboard. check out this [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&diff=next&oldid=10850317#fisheaters.com discussion]. --[[User:evrik|evrik]] <sup>([[User talk:evrik|talk]])</sup> 15:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
You can spin this around, and claim that MY demands for ref-quality are below par. But it is actually YOUR astronomical high threshold for source-quality that is the problem. If users like [[User:Anachronist]] believe that the Verywell article in question has no added value, then he/she is blind and stupid. I have no other words for it. - <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">[[User:Manifestation|Manifestation]] <small>([[User talk:Manifestation|talk]])</small></span> 18:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Looking at old discussions about this, it looks as if the owner added links before there were any rules against it, way, way back in 2005. He argued that point, sought remediation against an editor who warred with him about his having added links, but got blacklisted in the middle of it all -- in essence, blacklisted for breaking a rule that then didn't exist (but does now). I think the site should be de-blacklisted, or at least the page fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html should be white-listed. Preferably, I'd like to add a link to the site itself (fisheaters.com with no specific page inside the site) to the entry "Traditionalist Catholicism" as the Fisheaters site is the best-known, oldest, and most informative traditionalist Catholic website on the internet. [[User:Schoemann|Schoemann]] ([[User talk:Schoemann|talk]]) 09:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:When you lower yourself to the point where you resort to ad-homenem attacks, you've lost already. Putting your personal attack on me aside, a distinction is to be made between "no value" and "no added value". For the record, I like the article, I think it has value, and I'm neither against nor in favor of whitelisting. Also I'm surprised that so much discussion has arisen for something that shouldn't be controversial. While I don't see any reason to cite it, it would work well in an 'external links' section. But does an external article written for laypersons really enhance a Wikipedia article written for laypersons? ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] <small>([[User talk:Anachronist|talk]])</small> 18:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The editor was relentlessly spamming, something that we, in the very beginning of 2005, had a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Spam&oldid=9126406 semi policy] (an official guideline by the end of 2005) (and we were not writing a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox&oldid=9777207 soapbox] in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not&oldid=9008126 2005] either). Anyway, the relentless spamming (even while discussing) got this site blacklisted. |
|||
::Anachronist, the external link idea is a valid one. Though, this site appears to fail only criteria #1 of [[WP:ELNO]]: "''Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.''" As you pointed out, the verywell article on myolysis is a good, expansive article written for laypeople, and a featured wikipedia article would be a good, expansive article written for laypeople. |
|||
:fisheaters.com is not the official site of traditionalist catholicism, it is a site containing a lot of information about it. However, much of the encyclopeadic information about traditionalist catholicism can and should be incorporated in our page itself - as for many other sites, the link may help in better understanding the subject, but the subject can be very well understood without having this external link, and the latter is the reason an external link should be included, we are not writing a linkfarm here. The specific reference may be appropriate (and maybe other references as well, if this site is so helpful in understanding the topic better), but I must say that references ''independent'' from the subject are always better - of course this reference is favourable to the topic of traditionalist catholicism. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 04:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I will say, the guideline on [[WP:EL|external links]] says at the top: "''If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.''" Which is exactly what I'm trying to do. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 21:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Manifestation, I appreciate that you're passionate about this issue that I've raised, but the [[WP:PA]]s are totally uncalled for, and wholly unhelpful. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 20:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
==== "Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know" ==== |
|||
:: It's about as "official" as it gets aside from coming straight from the Vatican. It's used in RCIA classes, is cited in books, is recommended by traditionalist priests, for ex. The entry "Traditional Catholicism" is a basic introduction to the topic, but all the ins and outs of traditional Catholicism simply couldn't fit on a single Wiki page. The Fisheaters site is huge -- hundreds and hundreds of pages of material, detailed material that covers pretty much everything. It's like how "Orthodox Judaism" has a Wiki entry, and has external links to sites that explain the religion in greater detail. I think a link to Fisheaters should be allowed from the entry "Traditional Catholicism" in the same way. I'm not wanting to do any "linkfarming"; I just want to add one link to that one entry. [[User:Schoemann|Schoemann]] ([[User talk:Schoemann|talk]]) 23:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
While there does not appear to be consensus to remove the entire verywellhealth.com domain from the spam blacklist at this time, I'd like to focus on the whitelist request as written, which is for the specific Verywell Health article "Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know" (<nowiki>https://www.verywellhealth.com/myolysis-5189197</nowiki>). |
|||
{{u|PhotogenicScientist}}, could you please provide an example of the content you would add to the [[Myolysis]] article that depends on a citation of this source, and explain how it is compliant with the [[WP:MEDRS]] guideline (including [[WP:MEDPOP]])? If there is consensus that the use of this particular article is acceptable, I'll go ahead and add it to the spam whitelist. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 21:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::'.. is about as official as it gets.' There are subjects without official sites, they simply do not get a link to any site because .. they are not there. The rest of possible external links then have to follow the non-[[WP:ELOFFICIAL]] rules of the guideline, and the question then is whether the addition of the link is necessary for the understanding of the subject (if you can understand the topic without having to see the external link, then it likely fails [[WP:ELNO]] #1). And it is not necessary to have all the ins and outs all on Wikipedia, all ins and outs are not necessary for understanding of a topic. |
|||
:::The history of this (on and off wikipedia harassment, RfC's, ANI-threads, etc. makes me very reluctant to removal or whitelisting - I really think that this needs to have real necessity to be linked, and for external links I am .. far from convinced that this is necessary (and I would like such requests to be widely discussed by a larger audience including people who are not focused on one subject). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 05:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Thank you. In my original draft of this article, I had this verywell article being cited after the sentence ''"One example of this is laser myolysis, in which a laser is used entirely remove the fibroid, or otherwise clot the blood flow to the fibroid, causing it to die"''; this would support the citation I have to NY state dept of health. This style of citation, where more than one source is used, one of them being a popular-press type source, is put forth as an example in [[WP:MEDRS#Popular press]]. |
|||
:::: And there are subjects without official sites that do get links, such as "Orthodox Judaism." I maintain that easy access to more information as provided in links, as with the entry for Orthodox Judaism, is helpful and that it's not a matter of "not being able to understand the topic" without it, but a matter of being able to understand it better, more fully, to explore further. There's simply no way a single entry could cover the information that's on hundreds of pages of the Fisheaters website. Couldn't it be whitelisted for that single entry so that spamming wouldn't be an issue? [[User:Schoemann|Schoemann]] ([[User talk:Schoemann|talk]]) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:In the course of this discussion, I identified another bit of info that I think this source could be used for - a subsection for 'Ultrasound myolysis' at the same heading level as 'Laparoscopic myolysis'. It wouldn't be much, but it could start out with a small explanation of how MRI and ultrasound are used in this application (from the verywell article, "''There is another new type of myolysis that is even less invasive...''"). [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 21:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: For this use case, Verywell Health serves as a [[WP:TERTIARY|tertiary source]] that summarizes and cites two other pages, [https://www.health.ny.gov/community/adults/women/uterine_fibroids/ "Uterine Fibroids" (New York State Department of Health)] and [https://www.brighamandwomens.org/obgyn/minimally-invasive-gynecologic-surgery/uterine-fibroids "Uterine Fibroids" (Brigham and Women's Hospital)]. I'd like to confirm that this use case is in line with the intention of the sentence {{xt|"One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source."}} in [[WP:MEDPOP]], so I've asked [[WP:MED|WikiProject Medicine]] at {{slink|WT:MED#Use of Verywell Health for the Myolysis article}} to join the discussion. If there is consensus that this use case is appropriate, then this Verywell Health page will be added to the spam whitelist. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 05:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::@[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]], I think that you and @[[User:Star Mississippi|Star Mississippi]] are pointing towards the same underlying point, namely that editors have different ideas about ''why'' we have citations. Oversimplifying things, I've heard three reasons over the years: |
|||
:::* We have citations because they help readers learn more about the subject. |
|||
:::** Obvious consequence: Sources should be selected so that they are useful to readers (e.g., sources written in plain English, widely accessible, free to read). |
|||
:::* We have citations because they help editors determine whether the article content violates any content policies. |
|||
:::** Obvious consequence: Sources should demonstrate whatever that individual RecentChanges patroller's personal view of the rules are. (In practice, that's often higher than what the rules actually say, because if five editors check your work, and the first four think the source is fine, the fifth editor can still revert it for not being good enough in his opinion.) |
|||
:::*** Not-so-obvious consequence: Perception matters, and these editors are usually doing little more than glancing at the source, so an article from an impressive-sounding predatory journal or self-published book is more likely to pass this type of review than an excellent website, especially if you know what the various scripts are looking for in the citation. |
|||
:::* We have citations because they provide indirect, intangible reputational benefits. |
|||
:::** Obvious consequence: Sources should be selected to be impressive (e.g., journal articles, technical reference works, prominent experts), even if ordinary people can't read the source (e.g., paywalled) or understand what it says even if they do get a copy. |
|||
:::It looks like @[[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] is saying that they want readers to be able to use this source to get additional information beyond what should be included in an encyclopedia article. It would be possible to cite impressive sources for the same material, but that wouldn't meet the goal of having a pre-vetted, plain-English source linked in the article. It sounds like many other editors here fall into one of the other groups, so they're looking for impressive sources rather than readable ones. Without acknowledging the other side's values, it may be impossible to resolve this. |
|||
:::For myself, looking at that article and the rate at which readers click through to sources (roughly 1 in 300 page views), I think one thing is clear: we have already spent more time arguing about the status of this page than any reader would spend reading it during the next five years. I don't think we would do any harm by whitelisting this one page. I also don't think it is absolutely necessary to whitelist it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thank you for the extremely thoughtful response, {{u|WhatamIdoing}}. I'm glad to learn that the whitelisting request isn't based on an unreasonable reading of [[WP:MEDPOP]], which was something I needed to verify because I don't edit medicine-related articles very often. |
|||
::::My view on the whitelisting process is that any link that could be plausibly used in an appropriate manner should be whitelisted, if doing so would not introduce an unacceptable risk of abuse. Whitelisting does not ''guarantee'' the link's placement in an article, since inclusion is a separate editorial decision determined by consensus on the article. Whitelisting only makes inclusion of the link ''possible''. |
|||
::::This request seems to be a borderline case, since the Verywell Health page is marginally reliable and the [[Myolysis]] article doesn't actually need to cite the page to incorporate the information within the page. The pages summarized by Verywell Health ([https://www.health.ny.gov/community/adults/women/uterine_fibroids/] and [https://www.brighamandwomens.org/obgyn/minimally-invasive-gynecologic-surgery/uterine-fibroids]) also appear to be written for a layperson audience and, in my opinion, aren't significantly more difficult to understand than the Verywell Health page. If Verywell Health were proposed as a more accessible complement to a peer-reviewed journal article, the justification for inclusion would be clearer, but that isn't the situation here. |
|||
::::However, since citing the Verywell Health article in the proposed manner doesn't appear to violate any policies, and is considered by some editors to be a standard practice, I would still lean toward whitelisting the link. I don't have a strong opinion on whether Verywell Health should actually be cited in the Myolysis article, but the case for inclusion is acceptably plausible, and I believe we should allow the ''possibility'' for sites to be linked in these kinds of borderline cases. |
|||
::::I'm going to wait for a few more comments to see whether other editors find this argument reasonable. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 05:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::@[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] just commenting on the practice. Sites get blacklisted because they get spammed or heavily abused (or, in rare cases, because the community decides things are so bad that linking to them should be prohibited). Unlike vandalism, spam is a form of long term abuse, we have site owners coming back after 10+ years asking for delisting, or see them try other tricks. Delisting such sites is often a bad idea, we can whitelist specific targets instead.<br/>However, some of that material for which we require whitelisting is marginally useful, or there are better sources available. I, for one, am very reluctant to honor whitelisting material for which there are better sources or which are marginally useful. The whitelisting is heavily understaffed (as witnessed by how long this request has been standing) and I prefer to use my time on requests that show clear need. That is not going to be helped if we start en-masse requesting marginally useful and replaceable material, requests that typically need more work to investigate in the first place. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 04:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::@[[User:Beetstra|Beetstra]] In that case, I believe you're conflating the purposes of the whitelisting process and [[WP:RSN]]. <u>All</u> the material I've found relating to the Spam, Blacklist, and Whitelisting process include <u>no</u> requirement, nor even recommendation, that a source must be a shining example of reliability in order to be considered "not spam." The most common mention of reliability in the spam process is to ask "does this source meet the requirements of [[WP:RS]]." Which, in my request, the source does. |
|||
::::::* [[WP:SPAM#Source soliciting]]: "''Does the source meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources?''" |
|||
::::::* [[WT:SBL]]: "''Does the site have '''any''' validity to the project?''" (emphasis mine) |
|||
::::::* [[WP:WPSPAM]]: Zero references to reliability |
|||
::::::* [[WP:ADMINGUIDE/S]]: Zero references to reliability |
|||
::::::That approach to whitelist requests is not compliant with policy. Moreover, it makes life needlessly difficult for good-faith editors actually trying to improve articles. As is evident by the number of checks to take <u>before</u> blacklisting in the first place ([[WP:SPBLIST]]), and as Newslinger pointed out in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2020#Verywell,_2 this 2020 discussion]: Blacklisting sites with a legitimate purpose causes substantial collateral damage, by making it more difficult for editors to use a source correctly. |
|||
::::::If you want to cross-examine a source for its reliability, that's what [[WP:RSN]] is for. Whitelisting does not and should not require that rigorous of a reliability check. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I think Beetstra is responding to a more fundamental and practical reality: There are very few admins willing and able to do anti-spam work, and they sometimes need to reject requests to keep their workload manageable. |
|||
:::::::I think we should try to find an alternative link for that article, that meets your main goals (e.g., readable by someone who isn't a medical professional) and isn't on the spam lists. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::That's a reasonable stance to take - there isn't enough manpower to do everything. But rather than denying requests like this, I'd rather see the requests remain open, leaving the possibility that another admin shows up to do the work. Telling someone "not now" when there is nobody available to process the request is fine; but telling them "never" when there isn't any concrete criteria against which their request fails isn't right - especially when criteria ''do exist'', but a particular request fails none of them. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::agree w/ WAID--[[User:Ozzie10aaaa|Ozzie10aaaa]] ([[User talk:Ozzie10aaaa|talk]]) 18:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::@[[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] first, per WAID, I am mainly talking about the manpower issue. Except for the obvious official websites or broad rules (TLDs) you really need to look into stuff and we don’t always have the manpower (or time) to do so. Pushing too many of such requests will only result in them being ignored, and possibly also ones which are more important.<br/>I know that we do not blacklist for unreliability, we blacklist for ‘abuse’. But the two are not things that can be separated. Do we really just have to whitelist a site which is utterly unreliable (I’m not talking about VWH), because we are NOT to discuss reliability? Of course not, we discuss the merit of a site, or the page on it Do we not blacklist a site that was spammed because it may be useful as a source? Of course not, we blacklist to stop the abuse. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 19:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::@[[User:Beetstra|Beetstra]] {{tq|Do we really just have to whitelist a site which is utterly unreliable (I’m not talking about VWH), because we are NOT to discuss reliability?}} You're pushing to an extreme I'm not asking for. Multiple times in this discussion, I've alluded to the marginal reliability of the site, and its compliance with [[WP:RS]]. Its the <u>level</u> of scrutiny being given to reliability in this forum that I take issue with. Namely, because I started with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_434#verywell_Health_on_the_spam_blacklist a thread on RSN] to discuss reliability, and was told to come to the whitelist board instead. |
|||
::::::::{{tq|Do we not blacklist a site that was spammed because it may be useful as a source? Of course not, we blacklist to stop the abuse.}} In fact, blacklisting isn't the always the best answer here, nor the first. The very first check before blacklisting a site ([[WP:SPBLIST]]) is to ask "Does the site have any validity to the project?" That sure sounds like we should be discouraged from blacklisting sites that may be useful as an RS. You're also recommended to fight spam on a user-basis first, by handing out warnings, or blocks. It's also recommended to try page protection, like restricting IP editing, or requiring ECP. That's a lot of avenues to exhaust before moving to the blacklist. And I'm sure you'll agree, those avenues were not all tried when [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2018#verywellmind.com this domain was first put on the blacklist in 2018]. |
|||
::::::::What tangible harm is there in whitelisting a marginally reliable site? Especially once it's already been looked into, and the time spent? As I said above, it's not a huge deal to ignore these requests if they're difficult to process - that's the nature of the bureaucracy. But why outright oppose or deny a request like this, at this point?[[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 19:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::This was a case where sockpuppet accounts were being used - that's the main sort of case where the blacklist gets used. Those other methods are not effective when a sockmaster will just move on to another page with a new account. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 20:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I'm not trying to relitigate the initial blacklisting. But the official result of the sockpuppet case - which raged across 2 whole articles, with 8 edits from 3 users - was to protect both articles involved "for a good long while to stop this nonsense." Blacklisting not mentioned, and perhaps overkill. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 20:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::(Responding to additional text added after my reply) The burden here ({{tq|An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper}}) is to show that the Encyclopedia would benefit, not merely not be harmed. It is implied that the benefit would not be available from some other link. If the article in question can be improved without the whitelist, it should be, if only to save on book keeping. - [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 20:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::{{tq|It is implied that the benefit would not be available from some other link}} Hard disagree. That isn't discernable in any reasonable reading of any policy on reliable sourcing, nor whitelisting nor blacklisting sources. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 20:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Yes, I was pushing the extreme. But you do agree that we should not whitelist something that was spammed, blacklisted but totally unreliable. So then it is fine to discuss reliability at whitelisting. Here, with a site that is, in your words, marginally reliable we however shouldn’t … ‘Shouldn’t all that's needed for a whitelist request be to show it's not being used as spam?’ .. no, we do have a look at usability, need, and reliability (and I have not, and will not, given my judgement about that for this page, I am just talking about whether or not to look at reliability when whitelisting).<br/>Sometimes the only way to stop a persistent sock spamming perfectly useful links is to blacklist. Again, I am not arguing that for VWH this was such a case (and it was not my decision that this was such a case, nor whether this would become such a case that was stopped early), but we are not here to play whack-a-mole with spam sockfarms, I’m not spending, on the understaffed spam fighting, first weeks of finding, reverting and fighting spam, before considering blacklisting as a last resort. I will just stop them, and I have done so for very respectable organisations, by taking away their sole possibility of spamming their links. Sometimes they realise their loss and don’t continue, sometimes they come and complain, sometimes they come back with redirects, some site owners come back trying on a yearly basis, for more than a decade. It is, literally, paying their bills! Some spammers come and repent, but that is rare. So I do not necessarily agree that we should exhaust those venues, especially for unreliable or marginally reliable sites, experience learns that those venues do not exhaust. (And I have seen sockfarms return as soon as sites get removed from the blacklist).<br/>There is no harm, there is just limited manpower, and we properly scrutinize usability, reliability, and need before whitelisting. We need, unfortunately, to avoid flooding the whitelist (and since it is the same set of editors, also the blacklist), resulting in not doing even the ones that really needed.<br/>(I claim [[WP:INVOLVED]] on judgement in this request, anything I say should not be interpreted as in favour or against whitelisting). [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 10:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::@[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]] I think you have a good grasp of the purpose of whitelisting, and I agree with pretty much everything you said regarding assessing a requested source's reliability, and its use still being subject to editorial consensus at specific articles. Are you inclined to approve this request? [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 13:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::{{bcc|PhotogenicScientist}}Since this is a noticeboard discussion, the article can only be whitelisted if there is consensus to do so. In this discussion, although I expressed mild support for whitelisting, it does not look like there is consensus to whitelist the article. I recommend citing [https://www.health.ny.gov/community/adults/women/uterine_fibroids/ "Uterine Fibroids" (New York State Department of Health)] and [https://www.brighamandwomens.org/obgyn/minimally-invasive-gynecologic-surgery/uterine-fibroids "Uterine Fibroids" (Brigham and Women's Hospital)] instead of Verywell Health for this case. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 20:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::@[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]], most all of the opposition here is based on the rationale that this isn't worth anyone's time, and that I should go find another source. <u>Very little opposition</u> has been made to the actual reliability of the site. Again, I feel like this is because this is the "spam" whitelist noticeboard, not the "reliability" noticeboard. So, the culmination of this whole discussion is going to be "nobody cares enough to help you, go away." That's really nice. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 21:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::No editor on Wikipedia can be fortunate enough to see community consensus align with their own views 100% of the time. It does not make sense for me to force the whitelisting when there is no consensus to do so, since it would be reverted and we would end up right where we started. If you feel that my reading of the consensus is incorrect, you are welcome to submit a [[WP:RFCL|request for closure]] for this discussion so that an uninvolved editor can make an independent determination. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 21:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Is this seriously how "consensus" works? I thought consensus wasn't a simple [[WP:NOTAVOTE|temperature-taking of the majority opinion]] - but that [[Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Consensus|strength of argument and alignment with policy were considered highly]]. Lots of people came into this thread to briefly offer their opinion, but didn't stay to much further engage in discussion. In the course of this discussion, I've offered ''plenty'' of documentation in support of whitelisting this source. And if you'd go through this whole discussion (which I don't recommend you do, because it's entirely too long for something that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&diff=prev&oldid=1220587858 "shouldn't be controversial"]) you'll see a whole lot of editors who offered replies, but quickly backed off when policies or guidelines in contradiction were brought up. Since almost everyone here agrees that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&diff=prev&oldid=1220774289 whitelisting this link wouldn't do any harm], and that the link has value <u>if not a ton of value</u> to the project, why can't someone simply approve it? It just doesn't make sense. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 21:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::You seem to think we stepped away in the face of policy, but @[[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] you really need to be aware of badgering. Whether you see it that way or not, your push to keep this open until someone agrees with you ({{tq| I'd rather see the requests remain open, leaving the possibility that another admin shows up to do the work.}}) is badgering. The implication that we're not "doing the work" because we don't agree with you is disingenuous. There is no consensus to whitelist this article. I really suggest you move on to something else. Maybe consensus will change. It is not going to at this moment. [[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#be33ff;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#ff33da;">Mississippi</span>]] 21:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::{{tq|No editor on Wikipedia can be fortunate enough to see community consensus align with their own views 100% of the time}} The annoying part here would be watching consensus not align with documented Wikipedia policy. [[User:PhotogenicScientist|PhotogenicScientist]] ([[User talk:PhotogenicScientist|talk]]) 21:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::In response to your previous comment, I did read the entire discussion and my initial comment in this subsection ([[#"Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know"]]) was informed by what every other editor said before me. The [[WP:SPB|spam blacklist guideline]] provides a wide latitude of discretion and most of the views expressed in this discussion are good-faith judgment calls that do not violate the guideline. But as I said above, if you want a final assessment of this discussion from an uninvolved editor, a [[WP:RFCL|closure request]] is your best bet. — '''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]''' <small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 21:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== brautiganlibrary.xyz === |
|||
*We will not whitelist the entire domain but fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html could be done. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 11:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{Linksummary|brautiganlibrary.xyz}} |
|||
* brautiganlibrary.xyz/download/holeton-lumber-world1.pdf |
|||
* brautiganlibrary.xyz/download/holeton-lumber-world2.pdf |
|||
* brautiganlibrary.xyz/dig.html#manuscripts2019 |
|||
# 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. |
|||
# 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. |
|||
# Thank you much for looking at this. |
|||
--[[User:Holeton|Richard Holeton]] ([[User talk:Holeton|talk]]) 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*This is clearly not WP:RS and is promotional. Likely, the dead links just need removing. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 07:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*: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. [[User:Holeton|Richard Holeton]] ([[User talk:Holeton|talk]]) 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*::Also I see that many other ".xyz" subdomains have been whitelisted. [[User:Holeton|Richard Holeton]] ([[User talk:Holeton|talk]]) 17:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*: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 [[WP:ELNO|justification]] for excluding this domain from a Wikipedia article, especially as regards its catalogues. [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 19:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto| |
:{{rto|Holeton}} {{Added}} to [[MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist]]. Reliability issues are to be handled differently, and as far as I can see now Richard is pretty well within the limits of [[WP:COI]], and I would not call this request therefore promotional or the links promotional/spammy. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 04:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
::Thank you @[[User:Beetstra|Beetstra]], and literary scholars and enthusiasts thank you. [[Richard Brautigan]]'s "Library of Unpublished Works" (as described in the Wikipedia article) now resides at the [[Clark County Historical Museum]], which is the home of the Brautigan Library and the Brautigan Digital Library which lives at brautiganlibrary.xyz/ . Hopefully someone will write an article on the Brautigan Library and its history (maybe I will do it in my "copious free time"!). [[User:Holeton|Richard Holeton]] ([[User talk:Holeton|talk]]) 16:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== kickstarter.com === |
|||
:: Beetstra, I'm not sure what you mean about not including links "because other pages have them." What pages do you mean? I'm lost. Me, I think the Fisheaters site is relevant and should be included according to the guidelines on the External Links page you linked to. It doesn't fit any of the criteria for "Links normally to be avoided," but <I>does</I> fit the criteria for "What to link" and "What can normally be linked." Specifically, the site is accessible; proper in the context of the article; is functional, has been functional since 1996, and is likely to remain functional; has "accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" because of the sheer volume of information, etc. Stifle, thanks for considering this whitelisting request. I think, though, that the "Being Catholic" section of the site would be the best part of the site to link to, if possible (*/beingcatholic.html). That is the section that has vast amounts of information on traditional Catholic practices (i.e., practices of the priests of the "in-communion-with-Rome" FSSP, ICK, etc., and their parishioners -- all equally pertinent to Catholics who worship "outside the structures," say, with the SSPX). [[User:Schoemann|Schoemann]] ([[User talk:Schoemann|talk]]) 11:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* {{Link summary|kickstarter.com}} |
|||
:::Schoemann, your argument was 'And there are subjects without official sites that do get links, such as "Orthodox Judaism."' - that is the [[WP:OTHERLINKS]] argument I am referring to. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 12:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* {{WLRequestLink|kickstarter.com/projects/poots/kingdom-death-monster-15/posts/1779351}} |
|||
Requesting an override for this URL on the ''[[Hyper Light Drifter]]'' article. The post at this URL is from the creator of this video game and was being used as a primary source, which is acceptable per [[WP:ABOUTSELF]]. <span class="nowrap">—[[User:TechnoSquirrel69|TechnoSquirrel69]]</span> ([[User talk:TechnoSquirrel69|sigh]]) 01:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:I suggest you advise the creator to say the same on their website, not its fundraising page. Linking to fundraisers because they are the only place that describes a thing, is a truly terrible idea. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Oh, I see. Sorry, I was lost there for a second. Actually, though, it wasn't my argument that because sites are linked to from "Orthodox Judaism," then, therefore, sites should be linked to from "Traditional Catholicism." I'm saying that FishEaters should be linked to ''for the same reasons that'' sites are linked to from the Orthodox Judaism entry -- i.e., to allow Wikipedia readers to have easy access to more information that couldn't possibly be incorporated into the entry for Traditional Catholicism, consistent with the "What to link" and "What can normally be linked" sections of the page you linked to here, and ''as evident in'' the links from the "Orthodox Judaism" article. Rather than a link to the FishEaters site itself (if that's seen as not a good idea), a link to the "Being Catholic" section would be very helpful to people wanting to learn about the topic. I nominate the FishEaters site for this because it is so comprehensive, internally hyperlinked really well which makes it good for study, is relevant to any kind of traditionalist Catholic out there (the in communion with Rome types, the SSPX types, the sedevacantists, etc.), is reliable, accurate, the oldest traditional Catholic site out there, etc. One serious problem for traditional Catholics and people wanting to learn about it all is that most entries pertaining to Catholicism deal only with the Novus Ordo way of doing things (or, even worse, talk about present-day traditional practices and phenomena as things Catholics "used to do" or how things "used to be"), but traditional Catholics have their own calender, Ordo Missae, sacramental rites, etc. Trying to emend articles to include traditionalists always ends up in edit wars, with the traditionalists' way of doing things treated as a "minority position" of no importance, even though Pope Benedict XVI published "Summorum Pontificum," and even though priestly societies like the FSSP and ICK exist, as do traditional-style parishes of other types, and even though traditionalism is the fastest growing "sector" of Catholicism in the West. So having a link to FishEaters is a way to address all that. [[User:Schoemann|Schoemann]] ([[User talk:Schoemann|talk]]) 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:: I would agree with you if the fundraiser were still active, but I don't see the harm in linking to concluded fundraisers, and there are currently seven kickstarters that have been added to the whitelist by admins other than me. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:{{rto|TechnoSquirrel69}} {{Added}} to [[MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist]]. Closed fundraisers are fine for primary sourcing (though the significance of the fundraiser needs secondary sourcing). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 03:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
=== northerntransmissions.com === |
|||
I don't see Wikipedia as an "indiscriminate source of information" either; I see it as a discriminating one, and as "the" site people go to to learn about a topic, which is exactly why I vote for including a link to FishEaters at the "Traditionalist Catholicism" entry. I mean, why be ''less'' informative rather than ''more'' informative? I'm not getting it. There's the issue, too, of what I mentioned above, how offering even an encyclopedic understanding of traditional Catholicism is made difficult because of editors with an agenda disallowing a more comprehensive approach to Catholic entries. The entry for traditional Catholicism, though, is set up for the very purpose of teaching about the topic. If the traditional "take" on things like the Rosary or other sacramentals, sacramental rites, the understanding of Vatican II's documents, etc., can't be related on entries for those topics (again, with the trad approach being allowed by Summorum Pontificum, and held by the priests of the FSSP, ICK, etc.), I'd hope at least a link to a website that explains all of that could be had on the entry for traditional Catholicism itself. [[User:Schoemann|Schoemann]] ([[User talk:Schoemann|talk]]) 21:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
: The webmaster of that site also sees Wikipedia as THE site people go to, which is why it was spammed here so relentlessly that it got blacklisted. The site's About page says it is a monograph by Tracy, full name not supplied. The site does not pass [[WP:RS]]. I understand you're new to Wikipedia, but you have asked for whitelisting of pages on this site before, with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&diff=prev&oldid=629398006 your 25th edit]. We know that the owner of the site published (and probably still publishes) instructions on challenging the blacklisting. I'm sorry, but your request lacks weight given the history of the site and the lack of history you have. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|northerntransmissions.com}} |
|||
::: Actually, the main author's full name is given on that page (see "How to Cite This Website"). It's Tracy Tucciarone. And it's not a monograph; it's a 501c3 charity with a board of directors and a staff (that was recently announced at the discussion forum of that site). I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about the owner of the site publishing (and probably still publishing) instructions on challenging the blacklisting. I've never seen anything like that. Can you point it out to me? Also, I've never asked for this site to be whitelisted before this attempt. Note the date of the request you posted; it is this same request. [[User:Schoemann|Schoemann]] ([[User talk:Schoemann|talk]]) 23:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* {{WLRequestLink|northerntransmissions.com/ben-sidworthy/}} |
|||
Seeking a whitelist for the specific link on a blacklisted website relating to an interview with a musician to support the article [[Sun Coming Down]]. ''Northern Transmissions'' is a fairly active Canadian music website that features news and primary interview sources with independent bands. Irrespective of whether it is mainstream or editorially robust, the interviews are considerable in volume and as primary sources have value. It seems to have been blacklisted historically relating to SEO spam ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2012_Archive_Oct_1#northerntransmissions]) but this is now over a decade ago and the site itself is obviously not posing any threat to this site or for users to visit. Several editors have sought the blacklist to be reversed to no response on the blacklist talk page ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2023#Northerntransmissions.com][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August_2020#www.northerntransmissions.com_in_spam][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2020#Northern_Transmissions]) and has been suggested as a RS by other users ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_67#Proposed_reliable_sources_for_Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources]) so I am not really seeing a reason to keep it blocked. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Vrxces|Vrxces]] ([[User talk:Vrxces#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Vrxces|contribs]]) 08:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign --> |
|||
::::Per consensus above, {{Declined}} [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:I've {{Added}} the specific link to [[MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist]]. Any discussions about de-blacklisting the entire site need to happen over there, not here. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== www.examiner.com/article/ashly-burch-talks-voice-acting-and-new-role === |
|||
::Cheers, thanks for the help. [[User:Vrxces|VRXCES]] ([[User talk:Vrxces|talk]]) 06:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{LinkSummary|examiner.com}} |
|||
:{{rto|Vrxces}} Just to note, this site was spammed by site owners, and site owners wanted it taken off the blacklist: [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2020#www.northerntransmissions.com in spam]]. Unlike vandalism, spammers will continue, it literally pays their bills. Yes, it is reliable, but much of their info can be found elsewhere as well, and what is needed because it is unique can be whitelisted. [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 04:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== www.brautiganarchives.xyz === |
|||
Interview with [[Ashly Burch]] that I would like to use in a article I'm making about the Adventure Time episode "[[Breezy (Adventure Time)|Breezy]]", which she guest stars in. The ''Examiner'' article was promoted on [https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=683121128389890&id=425788337456505 her Facebook page] by herself. Thanks. [[User:23W|23W]] 20:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*{{WLRequestLink|brautiganarchives.xyz}} |
|||
*Have you read [[/Common requests]]? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{Linksummary|brautiganarchives.xyz}} |
|||
*{{not done}} due to lack of reply. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 09:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
# The most used website for author Richard Brautigan studies has moved to this URL (for reasons only known to the maintainer). It previously was at www.brautigan.net and was accessed hundreds of times a month. While you may not like the .xyz domain in general, this particular website (containing many hyperlinked pages) is unique in its scope and usefulness and I would like to replace the Wikipedia links to the now inactive www.brautigan.net. |
|||
[[User:R k nelson|R k nelson]] ([[User talk:R k nelson|talk]]) 17:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|R k nelson}} {{Added}} to [[MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist]]. (it is not that we don't like .xyz, the problem is that there is hardly any control on giving out the TLD, resulting in many spam sites from the TLD. We whitelist good sites quite liberally). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 04:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Sherry Jackson]] interview - Examiner.com=== |
|||
::Thanks! [[User:R k nelson|R k nelson]] ([[User talk:R k nelson|talk]]) 23:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
One interview, in three parts, for use in [[Sherry Jackson]], a [[WP:BLP]]. |
|||
*www.examiner.com/article/from-baby-sherry-to-sherry-baby-my-memorable-afternoon-with-sherry-jackson |
|||
*www.examiner.com/article/60-s-chic-k-the-retro-fantasy-world-of-sherry-jackson |
|||
*www.examiner.com/article/the-times-they-are-a-strange-thing-sherry-jackson-and-the-end-of-the-1960s |
|||
=== sciencepublishinggroup.com === |
|||
{{LinkSummary|examiner.com}} |
|||
*{{LinkSummary|sciencepublishinggroup.com}} |
|||
*{{WLRequestLink|www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.ajep.20160504.11}} |
|||
# Wanting to cite on [[Tornado climatology]], as it is the source for a tornado study cited by this study (<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Maas |first1=Malcolm |last2=Supinie |first2=Timothy |last3=Berrington |first3=Andrew |last4=Emmerson |first4=Samuel |last5=Aidala |first5=Ava |last6=Gavan |first6=Michael |title=The Tornado Archive: Compiling and Visualizing a Worldwide, Digitized Tornado Database |journal=Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society |date=22 April 2024 |volume=-1 |issue=aop |doi=10.1175/BAMS-D-23-0123.1 |url=https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/aop/BAMS-D-23-0123.1/BAMS-D-23-0123.1.xml |access-date=26 April 2024 |publisher=[[University of Maryland, College Park]], the [[Storm Prediction Center]], the [[Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms]], the [[University of Oklahoma|School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma]], the [[Advanced Radar Research Center]], and [[Stanford University]] via the [[American Meteorological Society]]|doi-access=free }}</ref>) I.e., the government and academics cite the study and use data from it in academically published papers, so it can be presumed reliable. Hoping to get this whitelisted since to save my edit, I had to remove the link and the article currently indicates via citations that the U.S. government kept track of Bengal tornadoes and not that they just cited a Bengal university study. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 05:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#:@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]], I think you could post a link to that page as {{doi|10.11648/j.ajep.20160504.11}} now (i.e., without worrying about whitelisting). |
|||
#:Whether you should link to anything from [[Science Publishing Group]], which has apparently been accused of predatory publishing practices, is a separate question. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#::I know, but that also leaves the citation without a technical URL since the DOI isn't the true URL, hence the whitelist request. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 06:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#:::URLs aren't required in citations. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#::{{ping|WhatamIdoing}} I just added it only using DOI and still [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tornado_climatology&diff=prev&oldid=1221319557 filter warned]. Whitelist still requested. '''The [[User:WeatherWriter|Weather Event Writer]]''' ([[User talk:WeatherWriter|Talk Page)]] 06:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#:::The contents of [[Special:AbuseFilter]] can't be changed on this page, and if the AbuseFilter is just warning you, then you're still able to post it. |
|||
#:::If the actual spam list blocked the doi, then I wouldn't have been able to post it in my comment above. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#:::This is a [[predatory open access]] journal. It is not eligible to use as a source. Please find an alternative one. '''[[user:JzG|Guy]]''' <small>([[user talk:JzG|help!]] - [[User:JzG/Typos|typo?]])</small> 14:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#::::I think you'll find it's more complicated than that. |
|||
#::::The publisher is one we would ''usually'' wish to avoid. However, the specific article in question may still be acceptable. In this case, WeatherWriter says that "the government and academics cite the study and use data from it in academically published papers", which suggests that this one specific article is probably reliable. |
|||
#::::"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." A publisher that we usually reject might occasionally publish something worthwhile. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
#:::@[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]], you could use one of the article's alternative hosts, i.e. [https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/chronological-history-and-destruction-pattern-tornados-bangladesh PreventionWeb], [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307175455 ResearchGate], [https://www.academia.edu/102071074 Academia.edu]. [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{reftalk}} |
|||
{{clear}} |
|||
=== www.testcoches.es === |
|||
These articles are taken from a day-long interview conducted 35 years after then end of the actor's career. She talks about her family, early work, financial trouble, on-set experiences, and career determinants, topics which are not covered elsewhere. In particular she talks about the spurious nude scene in [[Gunn (film)|Gunn]] which lurks, inaccurate and unreferenced, in the article. |
|||
*{{WLRequestLink|testcoches.es}} |
|||
*{{Linksummary|testcoches.es}} |
|||
The website was blocked in 2017 because, indeed, practices considered SPAM were carried out. This was done due to ignorance of how the Internet in general works, and Wikipedia specifically. After 7 years, things have changed enormously. The website has become one of the reference media for the motor sector, specifically in the electric vehicle sector. Unfortunately, no user or contributor can make references to the website. Which has reliable news, technical information (range, battery capacity, charging power in alternating current and direct current) of electric vehicles, measurements of all the cars on the market, etc. As I mentioned, it is a valuable source of information in the sector, with a good reputation in Spain and other countries. It has 10 years of experience in web format and on YouTube. I request that the exclusion of the site be reviewed because it provides value in the automotive niche. Thank you.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Cglezv|Cglezv]] ([[User talk:Cglezv#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Cglezv|contribs]]) </small> |
|||
:{{not done}} Please find another venue to promote your website. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 11:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::There is no intention to promote the site. The only intention is to unlock the possibility that other users/contributors can make references to it. It is a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] of technical information and news. I have explained the mistake that was made, I insist, 7 years ago. I would appreciate it if the request is addressed properly. You can see that there have already been contributors who have used the web as a source of information [[Denza N7|in this article]], in its English, Polish and Russian versions. [[User:Cglezv|Cglezv]] ([[User talk:Cglezv|talk]]) 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: What other wikis use as references is of no concern to English Wikipedia. We '''do not consider blacklist removal requests from users affiliated with the sites in question.''' <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 14:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::Okay. I just tried to solve something that I did wrong 7 years ago by being honest and transparent. Thank you in any case for your time. [[User:Cglezv|Cglezv]] ([[User talk:Cglezv|talk]]) 15:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== wepresent.wetransfer.com === |
|||
The interview will be a [[WP:PRIMARY|primary source]] for details of family and personal life - parents, childhood, financial and career difficulties, creative and professional influences - which are now absent from the article and from her [http://sherryjackson.net/ official website]. It will support some of her appearances until secondary sources are added; currently none of the ''Filmography'' entries are referenced. It might be used for a first-person account of how her career developed as it did. Her career was over long before this interview, so she is in a position to consider it more objectively from a distance than in earlier interviews. (And maybe she does.) |
|||
*{{WLRequestLink|wepresent.wetransfer.com/stories/work-sucks-i-know-ola-labib}} |
|||
*{{Linksummary|wepresent.wetransfer.com}} |
|||
Appears to be a blog post by the stand-up comedian Ola Labib, used entirely under [[WP:ABOUTSELF]] for content currently annotated with {{cn}} tags at [[Draft:Ola Labib]].--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">[[User:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">Laun</u>]][[User talk:Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">chba</u>]][[Special:Contribs/Launchballer|<u style="color:#00F">ller</u>]]</span> 11:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|Launchballer}} {{Added}} to [[MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist]]. --[[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
The interviewer is an [[NYU]] film studies graduate [www.examiner.com/classic-movie-in-new-york/mel-neuhaus] [https://www.linkedin.com/pub/mel-neuhaus/10/17/275] with apparently a lot of experience writing about film but no paid experience as a film critic or journalist. [[User:Yappy2bhere|Yappy2bhere]] ([[User talk:Yappy2bhere|talk]]) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== www.xyz.com.sg === |
|||
* '''Hey, you skipped me!''' Was that an oversight, or is there something more you need to know before making a decision? [[User:Yappy2bhere|Yappy2bhere]] ([[User talk:Yappy2bhere|talk]]) 07:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{WLRequestLink|www.xyz.com.sg}} |
|||
*We don't deal with the requests systematically; in general, concise and brief listings tend to be easier to handle.<br>Have you read [[/Common requests]], on which the page you asked for is listed? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 11:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{Linksummary|xyz.com.sg}} |
|||
This was an old Singaporean company that made AR and video game technologies. Their website's former design went down in early 2023, and the page later only showed a basic file list. |
|||
I tried to link the original weblink above and an archive url (from 2022?) for it to a page for Singaporean video game companies - [[List of game companies in Singapore]]. But the mobile app popped up a warning message noting that it used a spam word of 'xyz'. |
|||
As the firm is defunct, I need to use these weblinks as proof of its closure. |
|||
Here is the archive link from October 2, 2022 from Wayback Machine so you can check what it looked like (remove the space between https and rest of address, and the default link after web archive address. I don't want this text auto removed.). |
|||
https: //web.archive.org/web/20221002074025/http:// www.xyz.com.sg/ |
|||
[[User:ObiKKa|ObiKKa]] ([[User talk:ObiKKa|talk]]) 21:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|ObiKKa}} {{Added}} to [[MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist]]. --[[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 14:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===Philosophy Talk home page (www.philosophytalk.org) === |
|||
:::{{rto|Pppery}} I have checked the address link in abstracted intervals on the whitelist page. And then added my edit with the same reflink into that company list page and it worked! <br />Thank you. This was so smooth. This shows I had to be patient and look for help in the right places and wait. [[User:ObiKKa|ObiKKa]] ([[User talk:ObiKKa|talk]]) 16:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{LinkSummary|philosophytalk.org}} |
|||
===[[About.com]]=== |
|||
*{{WLRequestLink|manga.about.com/od/mangaartistswriters/a/TakehikoInoue.htm}} |
|||
*{{Linksummary|manga.about.com/od/mangaartistswriters/a/TakehikoInoue.htm}} |
|||
For some reason it was blacklisted but it is really useful for the article [[Vagabond (manga)]] and [[Musashi Miyamoto (Vagabond)]] as the writers interviewed the author. The website is not even used anymore but I gotta use it for the archive. {{cite news |last=Aoki |first=Deb |title=Interview: Takehiko Inoue |url=hetp://manga.about.com/od/mangaartistswriters/a/TakehikoInoue.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303173031/http://manga.about.com/od/mangaartistswriters/a/TakehikoInoue.htm |archive-date=March 3, 2016 |access-date=October 10, 2021 |newspaper=Liveabout |publisher=[[About.com]]}} |
|||
Cheers.[[User:Tintor2|Tintor2]] ([[User talk:Tintor2|talk]]) 20:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: Just updated the format of the request; use of the interview was discussed over at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Musashi Miyamoto (Vagabond)]] where I made the suggestion to get the interview whitelisted (ie. useful primary source on creative origins). [[User:Sariel Xilo|Sariel Xilo]] ([[User talk:Sariel Xilo|talk]]) 21:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: The archived version is already whitelisted. I think it would make more sense to cite it as {{pb}} {{cite news|last=Aoki|first=Deb|title=Interview: Takehiko Inoue|publisher=[[About.com]]|url=http://manga.about.com/od/mangaartistswriters/a/TakehikoInoue.htm|url-status=unfit|access-date=October 10, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303173031/http://manga.about.com/od/mangaartistswriters/a/TakehikoInoue.htm|archive-date=March 3, 2016}}{{pb}} (changing {{para|url-status|dead}} to {{para|url-status|unfit}}) rather than whitelisting a dead URL. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===[[PetitionOnline|petitiononline.com]]=== |
|||
The url in question is the home page for the [[Philosophy Talk]] radio show and so should be legit for use on the wikipedia article on the show. I'm also not sure why it was blacklisted in the first place and would be interested to know since the reason might involved ethical problems for the show's hosts (both of whom are Stanford Professors and the show is, I believe, partially supported by the university) that would need to be fixed. As far as I can see other references in wikipedia could just as well point to the radio show's wikipedia article; however, I could see some articles citing a particular show since most of the people interviewed are experts in their fields and could be reliable sources (though in most cases they've almost certainly published the same stuff in peer reviewed books or articles [though perhaps in a not so easily understood manner]). I will admit to knowing both hosts which is one reason I'm disinclined to do much editing on the article itself (though it definitely needs work). --[[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 04:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{LinkSummary|petitiononline.com}} |
|||
*Will need a specific site such as index.html or home.php before I can progress this. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 16:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{WLRequestLink|petitiononline.com/privacy-pets.html}} |
|||
**www.philosophytalk.org/index.php would be sufficient though it will reset itself to www.philosophytalk.org. I did a check on what exactly the spamming was and apparently several accounts were adding links from some wiki articles about particular people to Philosophy Talk shows they had been interviewed on; inappropriate and probably a side effect of them interviewing too many people who have wikipedia articles about themselves. --[[User:Erp|Erp]] ([[User talk:Erp|talk]]) 17:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{WLRequestLink|petitiononline.com/petition.html}} |
|||
=== A Voice for Men - www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/conscription-is-slavery/ === |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|avoiceformen.com}} |
|||
I am also trying to use a link from this site. It's not clear why it is banned; it seems like a fairly legitimate site. At any rate, the section I am working on is located at my sandbox. The link I am requesting is http://www.avoiceformen .com/mens-rights/conscription-is-slavery/ (I had to put a space in the url to try to get it through...well...the exact filter I'm posting here to try to get past. I'm confused.) [[User:Timothyjosephwood|Timothyjosephwood]] ([[User talk:Timothyjosephwood|talk]]) 21:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
I am asking for two pages of this petition site to be whitelisted for the purposes of referencing the [[PetitionOnline]] article (an article about itself) only. The claims to be illustrated with references to the site itself are admittedly rather trivial (alleged number of petitions hosted, date of interface change following owner change, trademark claim) but more than one reference to the website in question pre-existed my recent edit, so it might be reasonable to keep that at least (it would seem that the blacklisting occurred since May 2017). I already saved my edit with the urls missing, so will need to revisit it after receiving a decision on this request (to either remove the claims sourced through reference to the website or add the whitelisted links). [[User:VampaVampa|VampaVampa]] ([[User talk:VampaVampa|talk]]) 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|Timothyjosephwood}} This site was thoroughly abused (with threats to continue to abuse until the links stayed). You'll have to comment on why specifically this link is needed (is the information not available elsewhere), etc. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 11:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|VampaVampa}} 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 for the second link in your request. Can you please provide a suitable link? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 08:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{rto|Beetstra}} I'm gathering sources for what seems will end up being its own article on sexism and conscription (or perhaps eventually sexism and the military generally). I have scholarly sources, political figures and court cases related to sexism and conscription, but I would also like to establish that there is some sort of contemporary political activism component to the issue. This article seems to fit the bill, and addresses it from a (seemingly rather) unique standpoint, as forced labor. I suppose I could get by without the source alright, but it addresses the issue of conscription so pointedly that I loath to not include it. [[User:Timothyjosephwood|Timothyjosephwood]] ([[User talk:Timothyjosephwood|talk]]) 15:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* {{declined}} as stale and not a [[WP:RS]]. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::{{rto|Beetstra}} Thank you for the reply and advice. I have now replaced the second link in my request message above for your review. The index.htm page has only been evidenced by the [[Internet Archive]] since 2007 and is barely informative. The difficulty in this case is that I am seeking to use archived links to clarify chronology for the site's development, and the frequency with which the main page (bare domain address) had been saved by the IA is incomparably higher than any of the acceptable landing pages as per the advice. I will be grateful if you can consider the two subpages ("Privacy" and petition.html, the latter being largely identical with content with the main page). I am not aware of all the possible problems with whitelisting a page like this, but the website in question might not be an issue going forward since it has been virtually defunct for almost 10 years now (the main page remains with a shutdown message, no petitions are being added). I will appreciate a review and if possible an exception for historic documentation purposes. [[User:VampaVampa|VampaVampa]] ([[User talk:VampaVampa|talk]]) 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===whale.to/cancer/griffin14.html=== |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|whale.to}} |
|||
* whale.to/cancer/griffin14.html |
|||
This site was blocked for spamming. This one page has the introductory remarks for a lecture given by [[G. Edward Griffin]], a fringe theorist. The biographical portion of his page at Wikipedia has no reference. This would be used as the reference to the fringe author's early years. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|talk]]) 19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*I am minded to approve this page and will do so unless someone suggests a reason not to. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 12:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* {{declined}} This is the most consistently unreliable site on the entire Internet, and it has no respect for copyright either. Absolutely not. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 14:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|VampaVampa}} {{Added}} to [[MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist]]. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 19:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===lom.com/=== |
|||
::Thank you very much, that resolves my request. [[User:VampaVampa|VampaVampa]] ([[User talk:VampaVampa|talk]]) 18:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|lom.com}} |
|||
This site has a great resource - a glossary on investment terms, found here : www.lom.com/glossary. Shall we whitelist the site so that it can be used as a resource on wiki pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment? It is also a far better example of an offshore investment company, and should definitely replace the two examples within the external links on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_investment . They have been around for 22 years. |
|||
===elainecarroll.xyz=== |
|||
:For reference: |
|||
{{LinkSummary|elainecarroll.xyz}} |
|||
:* [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Mar_2#User_page_spammer]] |
|||
{{WLRequestLink|elainecarroll.xyz}} |
|||
:* [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_May_1#User_page_spammer2]] |
|||
:(note, the two are not the same). Seems to be part of a large spam campaign, maybe [[User:Hu12]] wants to have a second look at these. However, it is long time ago, it may be worth a try .. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 12:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{Moved discussion from|MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#elainecarroll.xyz|reason=wrong venue[[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 16:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)}} |
|||
===www.gayot.com/beer/top10weird-beers/rogue-ales-beard-beer.html=== |
|||
I was attempting to add a website link to the page [[Elaine Carroll]], but was blocked because the website, www.elainecarroll.xyz, was flagged. I looked at the local and global lists and did not see this specific site listed on either. I assume there is a wider block on the .xyz TLD, but I'm not sure where the appropriate place to resolve this is as there seem to be multiple places to request exceptions/removals/overrides for these spam lists. – [[User:OdinintheNorth|OdinintheNorth]] ([[User talk:OdinintheNorth|talk]]) 17:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{LinkSummary|gayot.com}} |
|||
:{{Done}} Have checked that this is the official website of the subject of the BLP. {{Added}} to [[MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist]]. [[User:Robertsky|– robertsky]] ([[User talk:Robertsky|talk]]) 16:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*Please clarify what makes this a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{not done}} due to lack of reply. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===mybroadcasting.streamb.online=== |
|||
===India Net Zone=== |
|||
{{WLRequestLink|mybroadcasting.streamb.online}} |
|||
{{Link summary|indianetzone.com}} |
|||
This is a legitimate domain used by radio station [[CKYY-FM]] ([https://www.country89.com/ https://www.country89.com/]) for online streaming. It would be ideal to have this domain whitelisted so the Wikipedia page for this station can have a functioning "Listening Live" hyperlink in its Infobox. |
|||
I would like to check if India Netzone could be unblocked? The site is useful in creating India related articles. Specifically, I was checking an article for referencing a page on Asha Devi Aranyakam, a [[Padma Shri]] winner. --[[User:Tachs|jojo@nthony]] ([[User talk:Tachs|talk]]) 13:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Wcreed88|Wcreed88]] ([[User talk:Wcreed88|talk]]) 03:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:We do not handle full domain whitelistings here - only full links to specific documents on a domain are considered. If you want to have the whole domain available, please see [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist]]. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 08:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{not done}} [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|Wcreed88}} {{Added}} to [[MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist]]. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 03:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===www.healthbase.com/resources/hospitals/singapore/gleneagles-hospital.html=== |
|||
::Thank you so much for taking care of this. The URL link to this domain now works. |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|healthbase.com}} |
|||
::[[User:Wcreed88|Wcreed88]] ([[User talk:Wcreed88|talk]]) 11:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
===mystrikingly.com=== |
|||
Wanted to use the link on [[Gleneagles Hospital and Medical Centre]] but was told it was a site on wikipedia's blacklist. I tried to find it in the global and local spam blacklists but could not find it. Please whitelist it because it provides much information pertaining to Gleneagles Hospital in Singapore. |
|||
{{WLRequestLink|diligent-canary-k5sq9c.mystrikingly.com}} |
|||
[[User:NorrisTan|NorrisTan]] ([[User talk:NorrisTan|talk]]) 05:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*What makes this a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 10:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{not done}} due to lack of reply. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Dear Sirs/Ma'am Editors, |
|||
=== palace.com === |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|palace.com}} |
|||
There is a Wikipedia page about (me). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gold |
|||
:For reference: [[:m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archive/Ukrainian_paper-writing_spam]]. That rule may indeed be too broad, maybe the two requests below should go on meta for an exclusion onto the rule. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
I have been in contact with a Wikipedia editor - [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] who has helpfully suggested I ask you to whitelist (my) website domain name please. |
|||
Reporting this section to [[:m:Talk:Spam blacklist#palace.com]] for adaptation of the rule. Here {{on hold}} until replied there. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
I used to use www.edgold.co.uk but this has been cancelled because I no longer wish to pay to use it. Instead, I would like to use a 'strikingly.com' website URL but I have been told that Wikipedia has blacklisted 'strikingly' domains because they are often used by spammers. In this instance, would you please allow this domain to be whitelisted and displayed for (my) Ed Gold's website. It is useful for readers to be able to see a website and a small part of (my) work. |
|||
==== www.lausanne-palace.com ==== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|lausanne-palace.com}} |
|||
I write it in bits because Wikipedia won't allow it to be written in a complete sentence: |
|||
For the article [[Lausanne Palace]], I would like to use the official website www.lausanne-palace.com which is blocked because it contains "palace.com". Can you please allow this page? [[User:Johndrew Andson|Johndrew Andson]] ([[User talk:Johndrew Andson|talk]]) 18:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC). |
|||
*Please supply an index.html or corresponding page for us to use. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{not done}} due to lack of reply. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
https:// |
|||
=== www.robertankony.com/publications/perspectives/ === |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|robertankony.com}} |
|||
diligent-canary-k5sq9c. |
|||
Was apparently blacklisted recently due to the addition of many spam links, but a link to this domain existed before on [[Vietnam_War]] which was now flagged by bot. It looks like this link was added long ago, and looking at it casually it seems legitimate (relevant article which is an online copy of an article in a specialized paper magazine. I'm not sure what's the correct course of action here, but it seems to me the link should be whitelisted. (Otherwise, could someone remove it, so that the warning on [[Vietnam War]] goes away?) Thanks! --[[User:A3nm|a3nm]] ([[User talk:A3nm|talk]]) 14:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
mystrikingly.com/ |
|||
:{{rto|A3nm}} This was blacklisted due to an editor who has been using this site continuously and whereever suitable and unsuitable. There are some strings of edits to [[Vietnam war]] by this editor, e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&diff=554760602&oldid=554704872 here], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&diff=551914052&oldid=551489062 here], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&diff=546697196&oldid=546378353 here] which are quite examplary of the behaviour (note that the revision before the (in time) first of these strings of edits, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&oldid=546378353 revid], does not contain any links to this site). This link was recently blacklisted, and the editor in question has been strongly advocating himself to get it removed and/pr get links allowed on Wikipedia. |
|||
:That being said, you say here that 'it seems legitimate (relevant article which is an online copy of an article in a specialized paper magazine)' . It might be a relevant link to keep, keeping in mind whether the site is allowed to host that online copy, and whether linking to an ''online'' copy is necessary, and whether there might be other sources that are a proper reference for the statements they are on. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 17:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::{{rto|Beetstra}} Yes, I had understood the context. I do not know whether this is the best source, whether it is allowed to host a copy, etc. However, I am not sure why this is relevant. The link was there before the blacklisting of www.robertankony.com, and the intention of that blacklisting wasn't to affect existing links to that domain, I suppose, just preventing the excessive addition of new links. So I still think that the page I mentioned should be whitelisted, so the warning on [[Vietnam War]] can be removed. --[[User:A3nm|a3nm]] ([[User talk:A3nm|talk]]) 19:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Thank you. Ed [[Special:Contributions/82.153.27.162|82.153.27.162]] ([[User talk:82.153.27.162|talk]]) 07:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC) [[User:EddieLeVisco|EddieLeVisco]] |
|||
:::[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] I just noticed this posting and would like to thank you very much. I am the editor in question and I acknowledge that I linked too many pages in the past, though it was with the intent to get information out. But I acknowledge, too, that some links were not adding much and were thus inappropriate. Again thank you, and perhaps if I link something in future I can do it on a page by page basis to verify its relevance, All the best [[User:Icemanwcs|Icemanwcs]] ([[User talk:Icemanwcs|talk]]) 19:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:I can confirm I have had multiple interactions with this COI editor, who has complied with our COI editing policies. (And as an aside has contributed [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Ed_Gold 140 of his photographs] to commons.) I'd like to be able to add his website to the article about him. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 14:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::{{rto|a3nm}} - the link was there before the blacklisting, and maybe it should have been removed when the link got blacklisted - blacklisting generally means that most of the links that were added were added in a spammy way, and should therefore be removed, as you can see the backlog of this page is huge, and the few volunteers that are active here sometimes don't get to it. It then relies on the bot and on volunteers that have the pages where those links are on on their watchlist. They will need to make the call whether the link can be removed without too much damage, can be replaced, or, ultimately, should be whitelisted. But there is no blanket 'it was not removed when the link was blacklisted, so it is probably good and should be whitelisted'. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===energytracker.asia/about=== |
|||
:::{{rto|Beetstra}} OK, someone just removed the link [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vietnam_War&type=revision&diff=659841345&oldid=659823407] so my request is moot. I still find it a bit silly, because the link could be a reasonable source, and it was possibly added long ago and in good faith, but I don't think it's important enough to argue about. You can close my request. Thanks! --[[User:A3nm|a3nm]] ([[User talk:A3nm|talk]]) 11:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{WLRequestLink|energytracker.asia/about}} |
|||
I've been in discussions with this organization about doing a [[wp:Wikipedian in Residence]] project with them. In this project we will '''not''' add citations or links to energytracker.asia, or edit/create any articles about the organization or its people. (The project would have them lend their subject matter experts to help me improve articles using top-quality sources like IPCC reports.) |
|||
::::[[User:Mztourist]] I believe you mistakenly removed the edits I made yesterday to the Vietnam War Wikipedia page. The issue in question was the link to www.robertankony.com/publications/perspectives/ and not the reference ''Lurps: A Ranger's Dairy of Tet, Khe Sanh, A Shau, and Quang Tri'' which is scholarly and reliable and is recognized by the U.S. Army Center of Military History and ''Vietnam'' magazine among others. The Tet Offensive was essentially a two day battle other than most notably in Hue and some of the data reflected causalities for two months of the Vietnam War instead of confining it to the Tet Offensive. Please see the tread above by [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]], respectfully, [[User:Icemanwcs|Icemanwcs]] ([[User talk:Icemanwcs|talk]]) 05:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
I'm asking for the About page to be whitelisted so that I can link to it on my user page if/when I announce that I've started the Wikipedian in Residence role. |
|||
::{{rto|a3nm}} - yes, they were added a long time ago, but by the same editor who precipitated the final blacklisting. They may also have been added in good faith (the editor may not have been pointed to our policies and guidelines yet, though "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the [[:m:Terms of Use|Terms of Use]] and ..."), but doing an edit in good faith does not necessarily make it right, correct, or appropriate, and hence such material is still subject to removal if it is deemed inappropriate. "could be a reasonable source"/"looking at it casually it seems legitimate" is ''not'' enough for that, our pillars set higher standards than that. As far as I can see, the material is in a journal, so we can mention that, this link is just a convenience link, hosted on a server that was spammed. |
|||
::{{rto|Icemanwcs}} As shown in the diffs above, you included information, whole references, and links. Although the blacklist only blocks the addition of the links, I do think that the rest of the edit should also be properly checked - I know there were instances where the inserted information was good faith and appropriate, but there were also edits where the information that was inserted is not suitable for Wikipedia, too much detail in places where that detail is not needed, detracting from the original subject of the page. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 03:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Regarding the events of last October that led to the blacklisting, I spoke with the managing editor at Energy Tracker Asia (ETA), who asked all the current team members if they had added links or citations to Wikipedia. Everyone says they have no knowledge of what happened and have not used an account named “Johnasonlily”. |
|||
:::{{rto|a3nm}} and [[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] I would like to thank you both for acknowledging that my work on Wikipedia over the years was done in good faith. It has been a learning experience and I have made mistakes. Many pages were calling for citations so I plugged in what I thought was the best source as a starting point hoping others would pile in and add or correct detail. I worked on numerous pages and created several that were successful except at times I relied too much on my primary sources. It will not be repeated but I do hope www.robertankony can be whitelisted as the sources are scholarly and would be very informative to readers on certain selective pages, e.g., Social alienation, Proactive policing, and military sites as U.S. Army Rangers and Long-range reconnaissance patrol. Respectfully, [[User:Icemanwcs|Icemanwcs]] ([[User talk:Icemanwcs|talk]]) 19:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
As far as we can tell, whoever was responsible for the spamming and socking last year was not affiliated with ETA. The managing editor has instructed everyone in the organization, and every PR and marketing agency it works with, to never add energytracker.asia links or citations to Wikipedia. |
|||
==== robertankony.com ==== |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|robertankony.com}} |
|||
(Courtesy ping to {{u|Graham87}}). Cheers and thanks for considering this, [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Wikipedia "Social alienation" reference #16 has the link to the article "The Impact of Perceived Alienation on Police Officer's Sense of Mastery and Subsequent Motivation for Proactive Enforcement," ''Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management'', vol. 22, no.2 (1999): 120-32. The article is published in an international scientific journal and is the lead definition on this page (please see reference #1). I removed the link in the interim but believe the information is directly relevant to this page (especially with all controversial, highly publicized police use of force incidents). Please consider whitelisting the link. Sorry for the abbreviated link in the heading but the page wouldn't save with it being complete, Thank you, [[User:Icemanwcs|Icemanwcs]] ([[User talk:Icemanwcs|talk]]) 03:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{replyto|Clayoquot}} Thanks for the ping. I support this request in principle and I'm OK with whatever is agreed to here. I don't usually edit the whitelists so I think it's best if I let the regular editors decide. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|talk]]) 19:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: Honestly I wish more people were willing to edit the spam whitelist. There are too few regular editors here. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 00:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) Sorry for my late response but I've been working on other projects and then couldn't find my way back to this page. Here's the link I think should be attached to the Social alienation page as it was published in an academic journal and would provide much more detailed information to readers ://www.robertankony.com/publications/impact-perceived Thank you,[[User:Icemanwcs|Icemanwcs]] ([[User talk:Icemanwcs|talk]]) 08:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|Clayoquot}} {{Added}} to [[MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist]]. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 00:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you both! [[User:Clayoquot|Clayoquot]] ([[User_talk:Clayoquot|talk]] <nowiki>|</nowiki> [[Special:Contributions/Clayoquot|contribs]]) 00:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
=== Examiner.com story on lawsuit against Monsanto === |
|||
{{LinkSummary|www.examiner.com}} |
|||
Hello. I'd like to be able to link to this link: |
|||
www.examiner.com/article/monsanto-sued-los-angeles-county-for-false-advertising |
|||
I would like to use it to reference a mention of this lawsuit to support its mention on the [[Monsanto legal cases]] page. The article is titled "Monsanto sued in Los Angeles County for false advertising" and it basically summarizes the lawsuit and reports its filing. [[User:SageRad|SageRad]] ([[User talk:SageRad|talk]]) 11:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*Have you read [[/Common requests]]? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 10:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{not done}} due to lack of reply. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===[[Aaron Davidson]] interview - Examiner.com=== |
|||
A 2011 interview, in two parts, for use in [[Aaron Davidson]], a [[WP:BLP]]. |
|||
*www.examiner.com/article/ceo-aaron-davidson-nasl-s-connection-with-traffic-sports-part-1-of-2 |
|||
*www.examiner.com/article/davidson-nasl-traffic-and-fifa-training-compensation-solidarity-part-2-of-2 |
|||
{{LinkSummary|examiner.com}} |
|||
These articles are from a long interview with someone who is now prominently featured in the [[2015 FIFA corruption case]]. I am struggling to find this info elsewhere and is it is a BLP, I would like to reference everything. [[User:Edwardx|Edwardx]] ([[User talk:Edwardx|talk]]) 17:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*Have you read [[/Common requests]]? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{not done}} due to lack of reply. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===www.hoopsvibe.com/features/41797-joel-haywood-aka-king-handles=== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|hoopsvibe.com}} |
|||
This article has a staggering amount of information on the professional basketball player Joey Haywood (currently writing this article), and if I cannot use this source, the amount of content on his Wikipedia page will probably be cut down by about 50%. This is a request for this specific article to be whitelisted, but I'm not sure why this website was blacklisted in the first place. Far too much information for me to miss out on. [[User:TempleM|TempleM]] ([[User talk:TempleM|talk]]) 20:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*Blocked for spamming quite some time back; therefore I would be minded to approve. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply to|Stifle}} When will this page officially be whitelisted? I have been waiting all summer to expand this article. [[User:TempleM|TempleM]] ([[User talk:TempleM|talk]]) 19:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===www.examiner.com/article/clark-s-trading-post-87-years-of-northeast-family-fun=== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|examiner.com}} |
|||
This article contains valuable, reliable, and secondary information for the article [[White Mountain Central Railroad]]. This encyclopedia article is in need of more tertiary sources. The author of the article has authored a number of similarly well-written and informative articles about other historic places, and shows no sign of a conflict of interest.--[[User:Hell on Wheels|Hell on Wheels]] ([[User talk:Hell on Wheels|talk]]) 09:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|Hell on Wheels}} - the main question with articles on examiner.com is however, is this the ''only'' source that states this, or are there other sources (even multiple) that can confirm the same statements (there is a reason why Examiner.com is on the blacklist, and that is in line with the reason why the author published his document on this server - we will hence only consider whitelisting examiner.com documents if the information is unique ánd necessary (as in: likely to be challenged)). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 11:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:By the way, I don't think that ever an article is in 'need' of tertiary sources, our articles should mainly be based on secondary sources. Tertiary sources can help establish notability etc., but that can be perfectly done with secondary sources as well (per [[WP:TERTIARY]]). --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 11:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===en.vietnamitasenmadrid.com/2011/05/municipal-theatre-saigon.html=== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|en.vietnamitasenmadrid.com}} |
|||
I would like this page to be white-listed in order to be used as a citation for the article [[Municipal Theatre, Ho Chi Minh City]] (current capacity and features) [[User:Clicklander|Clicklander]] ([[User talk:Clicklander|talk]]) 12:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=009672802819881781139:txwkuymijva=== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|cse.google.com}} |
|||
I'd like to include this link in {{tl|Find sources twl}} as a poor man's [[federated search]] for all [[WP:TWL|Wikipedia Library]] resources. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=009672802819881781139:d0vvkjtl31e=== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|cse.google.com}} |
|||
As above, federated search option for use in [[Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Navbox]] and possibly other pages such as [[WP:TWL]]. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 11:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== Infibeam === |
|||
{{Link summary|infibeam.com}} |
|||
Infibeam is one of the India's leading ecommerce website. Infibeam has become India's first E-commerce website to file IPO.Infibeam also owns <ref>http://profit.ndtv.com/news/corporates/article-infibeam-files-for-ipo-in-first-e-commerce-listing-777076</ref><ref>http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/07/01/infibeam-ipo-idINKCN0PB3R420150701</ref><ref>http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/IndiGo-and-Infibeam-file-for-Rs-3000-crore-IPOs/articleshow/47888578.cms</ref> Infibeam also owns the DotTripleO domain extension. <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.OOO</ref> |
|||
---- |
|||
;References: |
|||
{{Reflist}} |
|||
---- |
|||
<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Akash207|Akash207]] ([[User talk:Akash207|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Akash207|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
*{{denied}}. Request does not in any way indicate how Wikipedia would benefit from having a link to this website. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===www.change.org/p/ellen-k-pao-step-down-as-ceo-of-reddit-inc=== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|change.org}} |
|||
This link would be used in the article for [[Ellen Pao]] to get the exact number of signatures for the petition (see the [[Ellen Pao#Career|Career section]]). '''<font face="Papyrus">[[User:Anarchyte|<font color="#2D8C1F" face="Papyrus">Ana</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Anarchyte|<font color="#29851C">r</font>]][[User talk:Anarchyte|<font color="#35BA22">chyte</font>]]</font>''' 10:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:For petitions: if that number is of interest then it can be found in independent sources. Do such sources exist? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 10:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Declined''' per [[/Common requests]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===en.mediamass.net/people/jessica-mcnamee/birthday.html=== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|en.mediamass.net}} |
|||
This link would be helpful for the [[Jessica McNamee]] article. It provides her birthdate which has proven difficult to find otherwise. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 19:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*Please clarify how this is a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
**After looking into it further, I see now that it is a satire site. Sorry for wasting your time. <span style="font-family:monospace;">[[User:Dismas|Dismas]]</span>|[[User talk:Dismas|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 08:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
***{{withdrawn}} [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 14:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===Beacon Press (2 pages)=== |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|beacon.org}} |
|||
* beacon.org/The-Bone-Gatherers-P696.aspx |
|||
* beacon.org/Assets/ClientPages/awards.aspx |
|||
I'd like these two pages whitelisted so I can use them for an entry on Nicola Denzey Lewis (biblical scholar) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dithie/Nicola_Denzey_Lewis First, the subject of the entry published a book with Beacon and it makes sense to link directly to the publisher page when talking about it; second, the awards page provides a citation for the book's award other than the subject's own webpage.[[User:Dithie|Dithie]] ([[User talk:Dithie|talk]]) 00:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{declined}} per [[WP:ELNO]] item 1. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
**[[User:Stifle|Stifle]] (or anyone else) can you explain how these links apply to [[WP:ELNO]] item 1? It's unclear to me, having read the linked list. How should I provide a citation for my claim that the book won an award otherwise?[[User:Dithie|Dithie]] ([[User talk:Dithie|talk]]) 19:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== www.change.org/p/harper-collins-india-in-view-of-the-widespread-plagiarism-found-in-rajiv-malhotra-s-book-indra-s-net-published-by-harper-collins-india-we-call-on-the-publisher-to-make-a-formal-public-apology-and-to-withdraw-the-book-from-the-market? === |
|||
Please whitelist this link from Change.org as it ''provides documentary evidence of plagiarism'' in two books by Hindu evangelist [[Rajiv Malhotra]] who is also a member of [[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh|RSS]] (termed a [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-think-tank-calls-RSS-terrorist-Sangh-fumes/articleshow/1123740.cms terrorist organization]). This would help me add a "plagiarism charges" section to the article on Malhotra's book [[Indra's Net]] and substantiate the charges with evidence present in the link. Thanks. -[[User:Mohanbhan|Mohanbhan]] ([[User talk:Mohanbhan|talk]]) 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Comment - a change.org petition is NOT a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for providing evidence of plagiarism and should not ever be used for such a serious claim. There is no oversight / editorial control over the text of the petition. You need to find such claims in a good reliable source. Change.org is not, nor ever will be, that source. <b><font color="darkred">[[User:Ravensfire|Ravensfire]]</font></b> <font color="black">([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]])</font> 14:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I understand that a petition may not be RS but did you check the link? The petition contains links to a series of images from Imagur which shows how the text has been lifted from mostly Andrew Nicholson's [[Unifying Hinduism]] and a couple of other sources. It is not the petition itself which will be used as evidence but Imagur images comparing Nicholson and others' texts with those of Malhotra present in the petition. -[[User:Mohanbhan|Mohanbhan]] ([[User talk:Mohanbhan|talk]]) 14:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{declined}}, per [[/Common requests]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===sysoon.com=== |
|||
{{Link summary|sysoon.com}} |
|||
The website was blacklisted a few years ago - including regex term "sysoon" ( globally blacklisted by \bsysoon\b ) becose there is more international websites worldwide sysoon.com, sysoon.uk, sysoon.be, sysoon.de, etc... Please check if blacklist is necessary anymore, becose there is many userful information to use: Funeral and cemeteries resource, more languages suport, easy and fast research. My research show that new owner is not using any bad practices from 2012 to 2015 - [http://www.webbyawards.com/winners/2012/web/general-website/weird/sysoon-dead-people-search-engine-funeral-news-and-directory/ WebbyAwards honoree], or see article [http://www.slideshare.net/sysoon/the-rise-of-the-efuneral?qid=c2c676de-513d-4291-85f2-97c18948d3dd&v=qf1&b=&from_search=3 Article: The rise of the e-funeral].<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:88.212.54.54|88.212.54.54]] ([[User talk:88.212.54.54|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/88.212.54.54|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
:{{rto|88.212.54.54}} - Which specific link do you want to use (leave off the http:// and the link will save) and on which specific page does it have its use? --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 06:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{not done}} due to lack of reply. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== goodingcountyhistoricalsociety.shutterfly.com/obituariesforgoodingcounty === |
|||
{{LinkSummary|shutterfly.com}} |
|||
This specific page would be helpful on the [[Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives]] page because it has an obituary index for Gooding County, Idaho for 1946-1947 and 1980-2011. The site belongs to the Gooding County Historical Society. [[User:JaniceMSJ|JaniceMSJ]] ([[User talk:JaniceMSJ|talk]]) 08:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*How is this a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*I'm not sure how to establish its reliability because that is generally not considered a problem in the genealogical community. It is common for genealogical societies to create indices of records such as deaths and obituaries to aid researchers in finding information about their relatives. The reliability of the indices is accepted. Based on my experience with using finding aids created by other societies, I see no reason to think that the index files are inaccurate or have any malware. I have tested some of the files and found no problems. The Web site of the Gooding County Historical Society is similar to those of other genealogical societies, except that it happens to be hosted on Shutterfly. [[User:JaniceMSJ|JaniceMSJ]] ([[User talk:JaniceMSJ|talk]]) 08:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== Infibeam.com === |
|||
{{linkSummary|Infibeam.com}} |
|||
This sites appears to have been blacklisted following the use of the site during a spam campaign, however, OTRS has received an email asking for the homepage to be added to [[Infibeam]]. Can the homepage only be added to the whitelist to allow use? [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 12:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:Per [[/Common requests]], we need an about-page (generally preferred) or an index.htm, we can not only whitelist the main domain as that would negate the blacklisting. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 14:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|Beetstra}} will www.infibeam.com/index.html be ok? [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 18:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== www.595facts.com === |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|595facts.com}} |
|||
This is the official website of Stand U.P., a group supporting a lawsuit by the Marquette County Road Commission against the United States Environmental Protection Agency regarding the proposed [[County Road 595 (Marquette County, Michigan)|County Road 595]]. The article already has external links from Save the Wild U.P. and the Keweenaw Bay Indiana Community, groups opposed to the road, so for balance now that there is an official website for a non-governmental group supporting the road, that link should be included for balance. The link is globally blacklisted by <code>\b\d+\w+facts?\.com\b</code> . <span style="background:#006B54; padding:2px;">'''[[User:Imzadi1979|<font color="white">Imzadi 1979</font>]] [[User talk:Imzadi1979|<font color="white"><big>→</big></font>]]'''</span> 08:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*Links are included because they are [[WP:RS|reliable sources]], or [[WP:ELYES|these other reasons]]. We don't add links "for balance"; if anything, the other external links should be removed. {{declined}} [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===teeuwynnwoodruff.hubpages.com/hub/Rob-Cesternino-and-Rob-Has-a-Podcast=== |
|||
I am trying to create a page about Rob Has a Podcast (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Cesternino) and would like to use this as a source, as it has a detailed history of the podcast. It would also be good to use on the Rob Has a Podcast section of the Rob Cesternino page. Hub Pages has been blacklisted. AlicePotter 16:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Alicepotter|Alicepotter]] ([[User talk:Alicepotter|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Alicepotter|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
*Please clarify how this is a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
Information on the page is cited as being compiled from Cesternino's official webpage, robhasawebsite.com . I can't find any mistakes or inaccuracies when comparing the two websites. --AlicePotter 19:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===Examiner.com article on a Fiat=== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|examiner.com}} |
|||
www.examiner.com/article/retro-car-revew-1979-1982-fiat-strada-fiat-s-end-of-the-road |
|||
This link was already in the article, I just followed it, read it, and found this particular entry to be without any faults worth mentioning. A whitelisting would be useful for [[Fiat Ritmo]]. <span style="background:#ff0000;font-family:Times New Roman;">[[User:Mr.choppers|<span style="color:#FDEE00;">''' Mr.choppers | '''</span>]][[User talk:Mr.choppers|<span style="color:#FDEE00;">✎ </span>]]</span> 01:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*Have you read [[/Common requests]]? [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{not done}} due to lack of response. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 09:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== Three Google CSEs === |
|||
<small> |
|||
* cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=004797186867496047826:1nnbom_igns (art RS) |
|||
* cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=004797186867496047826:coodxrnfwsm (music RS) |
|||
* cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=004797186867496047826:rxardw9mwz0 (tech RS) |
|||
</small> |
|||
{{LinkSummary|cse.google.com}} |
|||
In keeping with the precedent to whitelist Google custom search engines that would be helpful in project/userspace (while keeping the general domain blacklisted to avoid spam and trickery), I'd like my three custom engines that search specific kinds of reliable sources to be whitelisted, please. As of now, I can't easily link to the search in my drafts or at AfD, where it would be most useful. – [[user talk:czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:black'><u>czar</u></span>]] 07:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
* Linking to the examples of past precedent to hopefully speed up this req: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2012/06#Google_custom_search][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/06#Horror_films_custom_Google_search] Not being used in mainspace, not being used with any revenue-generating schemes, I'm a trusted user, etc. {{ping|Beetstra|p=}} – [[user talk:czar|<span style='font:bold small-caps 1.2em sans-serif;color:black'><u>czar</u></span>]] 17:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== teluguone.com === |
|||
sir {{LinkSummary|teluguone.com}} is the only major resource which is available on internet for Telugu related articles on all categories and more over it is a very old website sir and a prestigious website . It is looking like someone's deliberate attempt to get it on to the blacklist by a throw away accounts .. Please guide me procedure for removal of this url from spam list <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Queendivz|Queendivz]] ([[User talk:Queendivz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Queendivz|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
*As can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prabhas&diff=prev&oldid=671513737 here] ''Queendivz'' is one of the spammers that got ''teluguone.com'' blacklisted, and hardly the right person to request whitelisting. A request by the same user to remove the site from the blacklist has also just been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=673451613&oldid=673449238 declined]. [[User:Thomas.W|'''Thomas.W''']] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 11:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{denied}} [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===companydirectorcheck.com=== |
|||
# It allows us to use valuable informations about companies based in the UK |
|||
# [[East Asia TV]] to reference his birthday |
|||
# companydirectorcheck.com/ash-lawliet |
|||
#* companydirectorcheck.com |
|||
#* {{LinkSummary|companydirectorcheck.com/ash-lawliet}}. |
|||
[[User:Iady391|Iady391]] | [[Talk|Talk to me here]] 16:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{denied}}, site basically scrapes the [https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/companies-house official Companies House website] and presents the same information except laden with ads. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{reply to|Stifle}} Thanks. Would you be able to help me incorporate the piece of information from the official website? [[User:Iady391|Iady391]] | [[Talk|Talk to me here]] 21:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry, I'm not in a position to do that. Try [[WP:RSN]] or [[WP:HD]]. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== typography.guru === |
|||
{{Link summary|typography.guru}} |
|||
Reposted from blacklist removals |
|||
'''How can the site be useful''' |
|||
This could be (and no doubt will be) described pejoratively as "a blog site", but it's by someone, Ralf Herrmann, who is [[WP:RS]] in the field of [[typography]] and particularly [[usability]] as it applies to typography. Typography.guru was launched in February 2015, but it's really more of a split of an existing site for English language coverage, away from his main German language site at http://Typografie.info |
|||
'''Why it should not be blacklisted''' |
|||
It has just been swept in the bulk addition [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist&diff=prev&oldid=673625520] of *.guru to the blacklist. |
|||
I'm actually rather saddened to see that moments after he had blacklisted it, JzG then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X-height&diff=673625803&oldid=673229643 removed an EL] from the [[X-height]] article (of course that conveniently prevents anyone else restoring it). A ref he had previously twice removed (it has been added by two independent editors) as ''"The .guru domain is blogs ans orherr such unreliable sources. feel free to cite him in a reliable source."'' The implication being that a RS stops being RS if they publish through a particular TLD, which is nonsense. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 14:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:For what it's worth, I think that Andy is right: Although the guru tld is ridiculous, this particular site appears to pass [[WP:SPS]] and its material has been used and useful. (I do take issue with the characterization of an author as a "reliable source" as that's not at all how we define reliability in this project but that's irrelevant.) [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 16:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:: This is precisely why we have the whitelist. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:: The point is that he's an RS ''beforehand'', because of a whole career outside WP and outside this site as an authority on typeface design. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 21:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===Mixcloud (Mixcloud.com/ne1fmharrysmith)=== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|mixcloud.com}} |
|||
* mixcloud.com/ne1fmharrysmith |
|||
'''Why it should be whitelisted''' |
|||
This page should be whitelisted as it would be useful as a reference on two of my draft Wikipedia articles that are coming out soon, and as proof that the articles are genuine. |
|||
'''What articles would it be useful on?''' |
|||
Again, it would be useful on my upcoming articles about Harry Smith (Radio Presenter), and an article about his show on the radio. |
|||
The only issue is, that his show is soon changing name, and this link will also change as well, so if it gets whitelisted now, the link will change soon and be blacklisted again. |
|||
[[User:Hazzyjam|Hazzyjam]] ([[User talk:Hazzyjam|talk]]) 12:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I've taken a look at both [[Draft:Harry Smith (Radio Presenter)]] and [[The James Cowen Radio Show]], the two articles created by you (because [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&curid=5675262&diff=674217347&oldid=674190985 this edit] makes me believe you're both {{U|Hazzyjam}} and {{U|Hazzy6000}}), and neither of them passes the threshold of notability here on Wikipedia, i.e. neither of the subjects qualifies for having an article here (see [[WP:GNG|Wikipedia's general notability guideline]]). And being able to add the link on ''mixcloud'' to the article isn't going to change that, since it's not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] by Wikipedia's standards. And neither are the links to Facebook, Twitter and the local radiostation itself that are the only sources in your draft/article. [[User:Thomas.W|'''Thomas.W''']] [[User talk:Thomas.W|'''''<sup><small> talk</small></sup>''''']] 13:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===nambla.org=== |
|||
{{link summary|nambla.org}} |
|||
*nambla.org |
|||
*nambla.org/welcome.html |
|||
*nambla.org/ginsberg.html |
|||
*nambla.org/hayonmanboylove.html |
|||
*nambla.org/pederasty.html |
|||
'''Why it should be whitelisted:''' |
|||
Deferred from blacklist "for reasons that should be obvious", despite no evidence of widescale spamming (other than a Fox News article), and that Wikipedia in other languages allows the page to be linked. These URLs are all already in use (except the top one), albeit using <nowiki>{{code}}</nowiki> or [[WebCite]]. |
|||
'''What articles should it be used on?''' |
|||
Any article which already links the page via <nowiki>{{code}}</nowiki>, WebCite, the [[Wayback Machine]] or other way of circumventing the filter. As of now, these are the pages I could find: |
|||
*nambla.org – useful on [[North American Man/Boy Love Association]] (link as main page); |
|||
*nambla.org/welcome.html – useful on [[North American Man/Boy Love Association]] (already linked using <nowiki>{{code}}</nowiki>, see ref. #7); |
|||
*nambla.org/ginsberg.html – useful on [[Allen Ginsberg]] (alredy linked using <nowiki>{{code}}</nowiki>; see ref. #93); |
|||
*nambla.org/hayonmanboylove.html and nambla.org/pederasty.html – useful on [[David Thorstad]] (already linked using WebCite, see "External links" section – these are his works). |
|||
Thank you. – [[User:Zumoarirodoka|Zumoarirodoka]]<sub>'''[[User talk:Zumoarirodoka|(talk)]]'''</sub><sup>[[Special:EmailUser/Zumoarirodoka|(email)]]</sup> 19:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===avoiceformen.com Roosh V Interview=== |
|||
{{link summary|www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/game/bang-the-definitive-interview-with-rooshv-part-one/}}<br/> |
|||
{{link summary|www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/game/bang-the-definitive-interview-with-rooshv-part-two/}}<br/><br/> |
|||
'''Why it should be whitelisted:'''<br/> |
|||
For use per [[WP:BLPSELFPUB]], on the [[Roosh V]] article.<br/><br/> |
|||
'''What articles should it be used on?'''<br/> |
|||
[[Roosh V]]<br/> |
|||
Just realised I forgot to sign this. Sorry. [[User:Brustopher|Brustopher]] ([[User Talk:Brustopher|talk]]) 23:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===change.org=== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|change.org}} |
|||
Requesting its use specifically for article [[Ben Rattray]], founder of the website in question. Site is blacklisted because people like to use Wikipedia to promote individual petitions on the site, but it is obviously of encyclopedia interest for article on man mainly known for the site. Link is only to site's front page, not to any individual cause or petition. --[[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 17:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===nashvillesounds.shutterfly.com=== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|nashvillesounds.shutterfly.com}} |
|||
Requesting whitelisting for use at [[Herschel Greer Stadium]]. This is a Shutterfly account belonging the MFP Baseball LLC, which owns the Nashville Sounds minor league baseball team that played Herschel Greer Stadium. The photographs show what the stadium looked like before and after the group bought the team and made major improvements to the ballpark. These images help convey the rundown state of the stadium. They also illustrate parts of the closed stadium for which free images are not available. [[User:NatureBoyMD|NatureBoyMD]] ([[User talk:NatureBoyMD|talk]]) 17:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===alfredgescheidt.shutterfly.com=== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|shutterfly.com}} |
|||
Requesting whitelisting for use on [[Alfred Gescheidt]]. This Shutterfly account appears to belong to Gescheidt's son. Gescheidt was a professional photographer and most if not all of these photographs are not available elsewhere online. The page is cited twice in the article. [[User:HazelAB|HazelAB]] ([[User talk:HazelAB|talk]]) 19:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== www.examiner.com/About_Examiner === |
|||
Request whitelisting for use as official website on [[Examiner.com]], per [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#The_official_homepage_of_the_subject_of_a_page]]. --[[User:Hobbes Goodyear|Hobbes Goodyear]] ([[User talk:Hobbes Goodyear|talk]]) 23:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==Approved requests== |
|||
==Approved requests== |
|||
===examiner.com/article/actor-ric-young-on-hawaii-five-o=== |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|examiner.com}} |
|||
# Article by Ed Moy is well researched and directly about actor [[Ric Young]]; would be useful for the article on him. |
|||
# Includes quotes by Young relevant to the specific subject matter of the article. There are not many articles about this actor who has been in supporting roles for about 50 years. |
|||
# I recognize that examiner.com as a website is a red flag, but the article here appears to be reliable and much more than self-serving. It also attributes some of its facts to other sources. |
|||
[[User:SidP|SidP]] ([[User talk:SidP|talk]]) 22:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*{{approved}} [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===Ole Hanson=== |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|sanclemente.com}} |
|||
Request whitelisting of www.sanclemente.com/ole_hanson.php . I have no idea why it was blacklisted to begin with, it is a newspaper link needed to provide verifiability for the article [[Ole Hanson]]. I put spaces in the URL since this idiotic blacklist protocol won't even let me post the full URL of the link I am appealing to be whitelisted. Nice. [[User:Carrite|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Carrite|talk]]) 22:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:For reference: [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2009#Arthur_D._and_Lynda_C._Davis_Trust_domains]]. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 05:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*{{done}} [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===manning.com/about/index.html=== |
|||
* {{Link summary|manning.com}} |
|||
Using a valid link to the About Us page of manning.com in the Wikipedia article on [[Manning Publications]] would seem to fall within the 'General exceptions' section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests and I would like to ask for this link to be whitelisted on this page, since in this instance, the link would normally be regarded as leading to the official site of the subject of the article. |
|||
[[User:Richard asr|Richard asr]] ([[User talk:Richard asr|talk]]) 09:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|||
*{{approved}} [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===Utility Warehouse=== |
|||
* {{LinkSummary|utilitywarehouse.co.uk}} |
|||
I am trying to update the address for the UK's sixth largest energy company, the Utility Warehouse. They are a FTSE listed company. Historically, customers were able to create subdirectories on this site and this led to abuse. This is no longer the case and spam abuse will no longer be an issue. --[[User:Sspyrou|Sspyrou]] ([[User talk:Sspyrou|talk]]) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:<small>formatting fixed. [[User:Mdann52|Mdann52]] ([[User talk:Mdann52|talk]]) 12:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:{{rto|Sspyrou}}. This was SEO-spammed with some other domains back in 2007 (I am not sure if it were just customers spamming). We <s>could consider a de-list after this time ({{deferblack}} (we'd have to see whether it ''really'' stopped then) or we </s>need a specific index-page or about-page (full url) to be whitelisted. The latter may be preferred in case of SEO spamming ... --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 06:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::I have my doubts as to whether this is a good faith request. Also, you have closed the deblacklisting request as defer here so you have a loop. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::The loop did not occur to me (I struck the referral back) - however, I think that my latter suggestion is preferred. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 12:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|Beetstra}}. Thanks Dirk. The specific index-page URL for whitelisting is www.utilitywarehouse.co.uk/. N.B. I have inserted and extra space before the TLD in order to be able to save it here. I'm confident that there there will be no third party spamming moving forward as members no longer have their own profile URLs. |
|||
I'd also like to quote a message from their Head of Communications; "Please be reassured that we have a very strict anti-spam policy, and dismiss any distributors that are responsible for spam. We’ve really ramped up our monitoring and policing of this, and would be confident that the past issues are unlikely to repeat themselves son such a scale. Wikipedia will be one of the primary sites we monitor and police." |
|||
What do I need to do next? Thanks again. --[[User:Sspyrou|Sspyrou]] ([[User talk:Sspyrou|talk]]) 20:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|Sspyrou}} We can not whitelist the home domain, we will only whitelist the about-page (preferred) or possibly an index.htm-like page. SEO spamming is not instigated by the SEO company, it is instigated by the owners of a site - they were responsible for the spamming, and as this site has no wide-use, I oppose removal from blacklists or blanket-whitelisting of the whole domain. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 11:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|Beetstra}}. Thanks. Here you are: www.utilitywarehouse.co.uk/index.html (N.B. I have inserted and extra space before the TLD in order to be able to save it here.) I will drive home that they are expected to police this well both internally and externally. --[[User:Sspyrou|Sspyrou]] ([[User talk:Sspyrou|talk]]) 19:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
:{{rto|Beetstra}}. Re whitelisting the specific home page www.utilitywarehouse.co.uk/index.html is there anything else that I or the owners can do in good faith to help this case? The current team behind this domain are entirely different to the one that got it blacklisted and they are will to give any assurances that they will be better guardians. (N.B. I have inserted and extra space before the TLD in order to be able to save it here.). --[[User:Sspyrou|Sspyrou]] --[[User:Sspyrou|Sspyrou]] ([[User talk:Sspyrou|talk]]) 09:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
::{{added}}. --[[User:Beetstra|Dirk Beetstra]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">T</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Beetstra|<span style="color:#0000FF;">C</span>]]</sup> 10:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
==Denied requests== |
|||
==Requests that were withdrawn, stale, or otherwise disposed of== |
|||
===Requests for blocked URLs to be whitelisted in order to transclude them=== |
|||
The following requests are for whitelisting of pages in order to transclude them onto "all on one page" Wikipedia Signpost editions. There is no need to whitelist them as the links can simply be placed without HTTP or with the nowiki tag in order to save them. However, if it is absolutely indispensable to have the links, I am open to whitelisting them for 24 hours only so that the pages can be saved; as they are unlikely to change in the future, the links will be removed from the whitelist thereafter. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 09:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{archive top}} |
|||
====www.change.org/p/lila-tretikov-remove-new-superprotect-status-and-permit-wikipedia-communities-to-enact-current-software-decisions-uninhibited==== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|change.org}} |
|||
This link was used in [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-10/Op-ed]] but when I went to creating [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-09-10]], I found that I had to remove the link in order to save the new page. Since there didn't seem to be a problem with this link when it was included in this Signpost article when it was published, I'd like to get the okay to undo my deletion and add it back into the article. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 14:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*Suggest you simply remove the HTTP or nowiki the link so that it saves. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
====search.twitter.com/search?q=WikipediaFundraisingSlogans==== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|search.twitter.com}} |
|||
This link was used in this 2009 article, [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/Fundraiser]], before it was blacklisted. I'm now trying to create a single-page version of the November 9, 2009 Signpost issue and this section needs to transclude with the other articles in this edition but I can't create it because of the Twitter link. I also can not just omit this article, the template includes all articles published that week or the page will not be created. The eventual page will be [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/SPV]]. So you can see what it will eventually look like, here is the previous week's issue: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-02/SPV]]. |
|||
I'm trying to create a complete, organized archive of Signpost articles since it has been continuously published for over 10 years and I would like to create this page if you will whitelist this link. Thank you. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*Suggest you simply remove the HTTP or place nowiki tags around the link. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
====search.twitter.com/search?q=%23wikipediasurvive==== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|search.twitter.com}} |
|||
This link was used in this 2010 article, [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-15/News and notes]], before it was blacklisted. I'm now trying to create a single-page version of the March 15, 2010 Signpost issue and this section needs to transclude with the other articles in this edition but I can't create it because of the Twitter link. I also can not just omit this article, the template includes all articles published that week or the page will not be created. The eventual page will be [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-03-15]]. So you can see what it will eventually look like, here is the previous week's issue: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-03-08]]. |
|||
I'm trying to create a complete, organized archive of Signpost articles since it has been continuously published for over 10 years and I would like to create this page if you will whitelist this link. Thank you. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
====search.twitter.com/search?q=glamwiki==== |
|||
{{LinkSummary|search.twitter.com}} |
|||
This link was used in this 2010 article, [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-13/Rencontres Wikimédia]], before it was blacklisted. I'm now trying to create a single-page version of the December 13, 2010 Signpost issue and this section needs to transclude with the other articles in this edition but I can't create it because of the Twitter link. I also can not just omit this article, the template includes all articles published that week or the page will not be created. The eventual page will be [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-12-13]]. So you can see what it will eventually look like, here is the previous week's issue: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-12-06]]. |
|||
I'm trying to create a complete, organized archive of Signpost articles since it has been continuously published for over 10 years and I would like to create this page if you will whitelist this link. Thank you. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 19:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
====search.twitter.com/search?max_id=16810037871644673&page=3&q=state+library+of+queensland==== |
|||
This link was used in this 2010 article, [[WWikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-20/Image donation]], before it was blacklisted. I'm now trying to create a single-page version of the December 20, 2010 Signpost issue and this section needs to transclude with the other articles in this edition but I can't create it because of the Twitter link. I also can not just omit this article, the template includes all articles published that week or the page will not be created. The eventual page will be [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-12-20]]. So you can see what it will eventually look like, here is the next week's issue: [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-12-27]]. |
|||
I'm trying to create a complete, organized archive of Signpost articles since it has been continuously published for over 10 years and I would like to create this page if you will whitelist this link. Thank you. <font face="Papyrus" size="4" color="#800080">[[User:Liz|'''''L'''''iz]]</font> <sup><font face="Times New Roman" color="#006400">[[Special:Contributions/Liz|'''''Read!''''']] [[User talk:Liz|'''''Talk!''''']]</font></sup> 19:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*Suggest you simply remove the HTTP or nowiki the link so that it saves. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 08:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{archive bottom}} |
|||
==Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)== |
|||
{{messagebox |
|||
|text=This section is for requests to remove sites from the whitelist. Removed sites will be blocked again (unless they have also been removed from the blacklist). Completed requests will be [[/Archives|archived]]}} |
|||
== Troubleshooting and problems == |
|||
===myretrotv.com=== |
|||
{{Link summary|myretrotv.com}} |
|||
*Appearently do to a Retro TV employee or enthusiast placing this link on all off network TV shows article, the url was [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2008#myretrotv.com|black listed]] except for |
|||
*[[Retro Television Network]] |
|||
*[[List of Retro Television Network affiliates]] |
|||
However in attempting to add the url to Retro Television Network article, I am getting the blacklist block. I have currently comment out the url until it can be fixed. [[User:Spshu|Spshu]] ([[User talk:Spshu|talk]]) 17:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*There's no way to blacklist a URL except on certain articles; it's all or nothing. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 17:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
== Discussion == |
|||
{{messagebox |
|||
|text=This section is for discussion about this talk page itself. Requests should not be added here.}} |
|||
I have cleared a lot of the backlog today. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 16:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC) |
|||
=== Old requests still in the "Proposed additions" list === |
|||
Hi, is there a good reasons why requests that have been processed, such as [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#tanners-wines.co.uk]], are still in the section "Proposed additions"? Wouldn't it be more adequate to move them to the "Approved" or "Denied" sections? --[[User:A3nm|a3nm]] ([[User talk:A3nm|talk]]) 20:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*Only because nobody has archived or moved them. Feel free to do so. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 10:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
===Ignorant question=== |
|||
Is there a way to whitelist something for use only within a particular namespace? <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC) |
|||
*No. If something like this were desired the only way around it would be whitelisting + an edit filter. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC) |
|||
{{hidden begin |
|||
|toggle = left |
|||
|title = Other projects with active whitelists |
|||
|titlestyle = background:#E6F0DB; |
|||
}} |
|||
{{div col|colwidth=20em}} |
|||
* [[ar:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[bg:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[cs:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[de:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[el:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[eo:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[es:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[et:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[fi:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[fr:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[frp:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[fy:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[he:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[hr:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[hu:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[ia:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[id:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[it:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[ja:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[ksh:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[la:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[nl:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[oc:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[pl:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[ru:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[sk:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[to:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[uk:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[vi:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
* [[zh:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist]] |
|||
{{div col end}} |
|||
* I was unable to format this so as to fit in the left column where x-wiki links normally go. This, as well as a similar list for other local blacklists ([[MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist|on our blacklist's talk page]]) may be useful information. --<font face="Futura">[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] [[User talk:A. B.|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] </font> 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC) |
|||
* Per [[d:Wikidata:Notability]], MediaWiki pages are not supported in Wikidata. – [[User:Wbm1058|Wbm1058]] ([[User talk:Wbm1058|talk]]) 15:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC) |
|||
{{hidden end}} |
|||
==Proposed removals from Whitelist (web pages or link patterns to re-block)== |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia processes]] |
|||
{{messagebox|text=This section is for discussing rules on the whitelist that need removal from the whitelist.}} |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia spam]] |
Revision as of 00:17, 23 May 2024
Spam blacklists |
---|
|
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:
- The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
- The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
- An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
- 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|1225203875#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}} |
![]() |
{{StaleIP}} |
![]() |
{{withdrawn}} |
Request declined: | |
![]() |
{{Declined}} |
![]() |
{{Notdone}} |
Information: | |
![]() |
{{MoreInfo}} |
![]() |
{{TakeNote}} |
Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards
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)
www.verywellhealth.com
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
verywellhealth.com/myolysis-5189197
- verywellhealth.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
- 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.
- It would benefit our article on Myolysis
PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is this really a WP:MEDRS? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Anything that even approaches WP:MEDRS is scrutinized rigorously everywhere on Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Why is VeryWell on the spam-blacklist when it has never been spammed? - Manifestation (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- Anything that even approaches WP:MEDRS is scrutinized rigorously everywhere on Wikipedia. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- A lengthy discussion of Verywell occurred in 2020. The thread was opened by User:Beetstra in hopes of getting review of a request by User:Manifestation. It is worth noting that only a link to one single Verywell article is proposed here for whitelisting: www.verywellhealth.com/myolysis-5189197. A ping to User:Beetstra is appropriate. He has done a lot of work on spam so he might be able to offer advice about any spam issues that would apply to this link. EdJohnston (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- For context, that one link was whitelisted by the late Spinningspark, during a time when there were no active admins monitoring requests on this page at all, so doesn't indicate anything other than his specific views. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
"The thread was opened by User:Beetstra in hopes of getting review of a request by User:Manifestation."
- No, that thread was opened by Beetstra to harass me into silence. No one came to my defense at the time. Verywell remains banned to this day, for no good reason. However, on a more positive note, Beetstra did whitelist one url from Verywell Mind. So maybe that site isn't so bad after all, right?
- A second url, from Verywell Health, was added by the late Spinningspark, as Pppery already pointed out. - Manifestation (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- That AN thread went a bit off the rails. It started with Beetstra pointing out a personal attack from Manifestation, and only happened to meander its way toward discussing verywell's usability. What I did see, though, were 2 users who provided specific use cases for verywell that were shut down by the blacklisting. Whitelisting wasn't a preferred option for either of them - SandyGeorgia said they hardly knew about whitelisting at all, and wbm outright calling the whitelist one of the most unpleasant aspects of WP. Add me to that group of editors less than impressed with the whitelist process, for how little attention my request has gotten (before asking at AN).
- Putting that aside, though, I'd like to process this one whitelist request before diving into a whole 'nother discussion about verywell as a whole. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- It appears that three verywell* links were added to the Spam blacklist here in December 2018 by User:JzG. (verywellhealth.com, verywellmind.com and verywellfamily.com). The request was posted at this page. Replying to User:Manifestation: if you believe that User:Beetstra has been harassing you you should make a complaint in the appropriate forum. Beetstra introduces his comments in that thread with "Time for some independent review", which is why I quoted him as posting for review. The 2020 thread does not show you at your best, with your references to 'lying' and so forth. A equally unpleasant exchange occurs in this thread from May 2020. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, those two had a couple of unpleasant exchanges 4 years ago. But I'm hoping we can discuss my request on its owm merit, without any more unpleasantness. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- What merits would those be? These are unreliable sources that were spammed. They have no evident value to this project. The fact of an unreliable source carrying an article that is not packed with fringe claims does not magically transform it into a reliable source, and the sourcing standard for medical content (WP:MEDRS) is substantially higher than for routine content. If the content you want to include is not published in a MEDRS source then it doesn't get included. If it is in a MEDRS source then use that. It seems pretty simple to me. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- On what basis have you decided verywell is broadly an unreliable source? There have been very few previous discussions about verywell anywhere on WP, and the RSP entry that technically covers verywell is more about their parent company. Even still, that RSP entry lists that family of sources as "no consensus" on reliability, and says
Editors find the quality of articles published by About.com to be inconsistent
. That sure sounds to me like some articles are high-quality, others are not, and deciding if one counts as an WP:RS is subject to common sense. - More to the point, verywell's article on myolysis seems usable for uncontroversial information, explicitly in accordance with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources. And other discussions, which EdJohnston linked to, have shown that I'm not the only editor who judges some of their articles to be reliable and worth citation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- @JzG since you've replied to others below, would you care to engage with or rebut any my points here? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did. I disagree with you. Not much more to say, really. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- There's plenty more you could say. You could provide any examples at all of articles of theirs you're characterizing as "advertorial" or "written by AI." You could clarify why you consider the main purpose of verywell to be selling products as opposed to simply being popular press, when other RS don't get that treatment. You could clarify which part of the WP:MEDRS standard you believe this source fails, considering I've pointed out where in that guideline it's allowed. But of course, you don't have to answer to any of that, and can bow out as you like. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I did. I disagree with you. Not much more to say, really. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @JzG since you've replied to others below, would you care to engage with or rebut any my points here? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- On what basis have you decided verywell is broadly an unreliable source? There have been very few previous discussions about verywell anywhere on WP, and the RSP entry that technically covers verywell is more about their parent company. Even still, that RSP entry lists that family of sources as "no consensus" on reliability, and says
- What merits would those be? These are unreliable sources that were spammed. They have no evident value to this project. The fact of an unreliable source carrying an article that is not packed with fringe claims does not magically transform it into a reliable source, and the sourcing standard for medical content (WP:MEDRS) is substantially higher than for routine content. If the content you want to include is not published in a MEDRS source then it doesn't get included. If it is in a MEDRS source then use that. It seems pretty simple to me. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, those two had a couple of unpleasant exchanges 4 years ago. But I'm hoping we can discuss my request on its owm merit, without any more unpleasantness. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- It appears that three verywell* links were added to the Spam blacklist here in December 2018 by User:JzG. (verywellhealth.com, verywellmind.com and verywellfamily.com). The request was posted at this page. Replying to User:Manifestation: if you believe that User:Beetstra has been harassing you you should make a complaint in the appropriate forum. Beetstra introduces his comments in that thread with "Time for some independent review", which is why I quoted him as posting for review. The 2020 thread does not show you at your best, with your references to 'lying' and so forth. A equally unpleasant exchange occurs in this thread from May 2020. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- For context, that one link was whitelisted by the late Spinningspark, during a time when there were no active admins monitoring requests on this page at all, so doesn't indicate anything other than his specific views. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Collapsing personal attacks |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Calling other editors "stupid" is against our policies. This is not the way to address a dispute with another editor. You need to behave yourself, Manifestation. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Swatjester: Why is Verywell banned? Why isn't it unbanned? - Manifestation (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because it was spammed and is unreliable. Right now it has a load of advertorial that appears to have been written by AI, promoting expensive and generally useless products. The purpose of the site is sales, not information. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agree that there is no good rationale for removing "verywell" sites from the blacklist for reasons already enumerated; that is, it's largely promotional, and most of the content does not meet WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Could you provide links to any verywellhealth sites where they're promoting products? Or ones written by AI? Their article on myolysis is neither of those, and is the purpose of my whitelist request.
- And the apparent purpose of Verywellhealth is to provide health and wellness information by health professionals. It's pretty apparent their main purpose is to be a consumer-friendly medical information website. They may leverage their popularity to recommend products and make commissions on sales - but other RS do that too, and we don't deprecate the entire site because of it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- @JzG and OhNoitsJamie: Are we seeing the same website? Are we living in the same universe? What promotions?? Which products?? Which AI-content?? I have the home page of Verywell Health in front of me right now. Here are the first five articles on the front page as of 14:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC):
- How Does Cannabis Affect a Workout?
By Stephanie Brown | Published on April 16, 2024
Fact checked by Nick Blackmer - 4 Health Benefits of Walking in the Rain, According to Experts
By Alyssa Hui | Updated on April 19, 2024
Fact checked by Nick Blackmer - These Are the 8 Best Fruit and Veggie Skins to Eat
By Lauren Manaker MS, RDN, LD | Updated on April 19, 2024
Fact checked by Nick Blackmer - COVID by the Numbers: Spring 2024
By Team Verywell Health | Updated on April 19, 2024
Fact checked by Marley Hall - Flu By the Numbers: April 19, 2024
By Team Verywell Health | Updated on April 19, 2024
Fact checked by Angela Underwood
- How Does Cannabis Affect a Workout?
- As can already be deduced from the titles, this is a popular press website. In terms of quality, it is similar to such sites as Psychology Today, ScienceDaily, Men's Health, Woman's Day, etc. These offer simplistic, mass-produced articles written in a simplistic language, intended for the general masses. In other words, not a reason to ban the site. - Manifestation (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- And I don't think that was the initial reason. The request was made by Jytdog a few days before retiring | being blocked. In Jytdog's contribution history for the day or so before requesting I see several edit summaries saying "spam" or "spammy" where Jytdog removed cites of verywell*. Apparently some editors (some of whom were soon blocked) were adding cites recently. But no evidence was provided that the site is spam, i.e. what we're seeing is: edits are spam by Jytdog's definition, therefore the non-spam site is blacklisted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you!! Finally someone who actually looks at the evidence. 😊
- I'm not even sure that Dulanji Perera (5 edits) and Dulanji P (1 edit) are sockpuppets of Mservi68 (2 edits). Their edits don't really resemble each other, and their IP address is a shared IP from Lanka Education and Research Network. However, based on this tiny little case, with a whopping three sock accounts, three Verywell websites were banned, by User:JzG. This was unjustifiable, but JzG and Beetstra do not care, because they don't like the Verywell sites. - Manifestation (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Peter has an idiosyncratic attitude to source reliability, based on many past discussions. You'd be better off asking at WP:RSN. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Classic clickbait. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:11, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- If that's classic clickbait, then Clickbait contains some serious errors (e.g., "typically deceptive, sensationalized, or otherwise misleading", "an element of dishonesty, using enticements that do not accurately reflect the content being delivered", "A defining characteristic of clickbait is misrepresentation"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- And I don't think that was the initial reason. The request was made by Jytdog a few days before retiring | being blocked. In Jytdog's contribution history for the day or so before requesting I see several edit summaries saying "spam" or "spammy" where Jytdog removed cites of verywell*. Apparently some editors (some of whom were soon blocked) were adding cites recently. But no evidence was provided that the site is spam, i.e. what we're seeing is: edits are spam by Jytdog's definition, therefore the non-spam site is blacklisted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- @JzG and OhNoitsJamie: Are we seeing the same website? Are we living in the same universe? What promotions?? Which products?? Which AI-content?? I have the home page of Verywell Health in front of me right now. Here are the first five articles on the front page as of 14:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC):
- Because it was spammed and is unreliable. Right now it has a load of advertorial that appears to have been written by AI, promoting expensive and generally useless products. The purpose of the site is sales, not information. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Swatjester: Why is Verywell banned? Why isn't it unbanned? - Manifestation (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Calling other editors "stupid" is against our policies. This is not the way to address a dispute with another editor. You need to behave yourself, Manifestation. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Question for User:Pppery: is there anything on this proposed-whitelisted page that is unique? Or is it just a convenient source that could reasonably be replaced by other non-blacklisted sources? DMacks (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- It shouldn't really matter if a source is unique in judging if it's worth using. Particularly medical sources - WP:MEDPOP says that popular press "sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English", and to "use common sense" to evaluate the quality of each individual article from sources like this. That guideline also recommends: "One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source." So there is a legitimate use case for citing sources like verywell in tandem with more scientific, scholarly sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given the apparent reluctance of others to whitelist this page, I had hoped to elicit an alternate way forward: either a new and strong argument for why this page should be whitelisted or alternatives that could be used. Taking a seeming argumentative stance with me, who came here by your ow request on another noticeboard, is not helpful. I'm out. DMacks (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Argumentative? You provided a pathway by which my whitelist request could be declined, and I provided relevant information from our policies in support. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- He asked for information that might lead to improving an article. You responded by arguing that he didn't need that information, because it would undermine your case to get what you want. That sounds like being argumentative to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Argumentative? You provided a pathway by which my whitelist request could be declined, and I provided relevant information from our policies in support. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Given the apparent reluctance of others to whitelist this page, I had hoped to elicit an alternate way forward: either a new and strong argument for why this page should be whitelisted or alternatives that could be used. Taking a seeming argumentative stance with me, who came here by your ow request on another noticeboard, is not helpful. I'm out. DMacks (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- It shouldn't really matter if a source is unique in judging if it's worth using. Particularly medical sources - WP:MEDPOP says that popular press "sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English", and to "use common sense" to evaluate the quality of each individual article from sources like this. That guideline also recommends: "One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source." So there is a legitimate use case for citing sources like verywell in tandem with more scientific, scholarly sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose PhotogenicScientist and Manifestation are trying very hard for this page without making a case for why it has to be this page and none else. If it's only on one site it probably doesn't fit the spirit of MEDRS. Recommend finding a non problematic source. Star Mississippi 01:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please, see my comment above re: WP:MEDPOP. There's nothing wrong with citing popular press like this, even if the information could be gleaned elsewhere. I'm not aware of any policy that says a source requested for whitelisting must be the only source able to be cited for specific information. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're pushing so hard for this page to be whitelisted when by your admission, the info could come from elsewhere. The source is problematic per multiple established editors. Using a different one would be the best and most viable outcome here. Star Mississippi 13:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pushing for it to be used in the article because it is a plain-English summary of a medical procedure that is approachably written, and falls afoul of neither WP:RS nor WP:MEDRS. Many "established editors" have expressed concerns, but I feel nobody has actually engaged with my arguments to policy, or any of my responses. And if there is some rule that sources cannot be whitelisted if the information can come from elsewhere, nobody has pointed me to it - it seems to be just an unwritten (and imo detrimental) aspect of this whitelist process.
- This site is caught in a catch-22 between reliability and spam right now. It was deemed spam long ago, on evidence that wasn't clear (by Beetstra's admission). Then its reliability took a hit "due to persistent abuse," that only cited this one spam blacklisting. Now, when you try to discuss its reliability, you get sent to the spam list to get it whitelisted. And if you go to the spam whitelist, everyone goes back to questioning its reliability. It's been a very frustrating 3 weeks trying to work through this.
- I ask of you - please take a look at the article on myolysis. I can't link it, but the url is at the top of this request. Look it over, and see for yourself if you would consider it a reliable source. If you don't think it's reliable, I would really like to know why, so I can better calibrate on what this site expects in terms of reliability - because I've read RS and MEDRS six ways to sunday, and I don't see any issues with the source. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- OK, I'm coming here without an opinion either way, and I've done ask you asked, and read the entire article you linked at the top of this section.
- Is it reliable? Maybe. Has it been discussed at WP:RSN?
- Assuming it's reliable, I am having a hard time figuring out what information that article presents that cannot easily be found in other sources. The Wikipedia article on myolysis already presents (using your own words) "a plain-English summary of a medical procedure that is approachably written". What value would this pop-medical article add? I'm not seeing it. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. I opened this discussion on RSN a while back. Before that, there had been very little discussion of verywellhealth. I summarized what I could glean from all past discussions in that RSN post.
- Generally, I agree with you that this article is neither the best nor the only source where information on myolysis can come from. But in my evaluation, it seems like a fine source to use. I appear to be the only one who cares about our article on myolysis here - I already expanded it quite a bit, from rather unhelpful dab page to at least a short article. And I did so largely by citing what other sources I could find. But this article would be useful to fill in content gaps that aren't easily summarizable from other sources - such as a short sentence describing the usage of radiofrequency ablation. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- I ask of you - please take a look at the article on myolysis. I can't link it, but the url is at the top of this request. Look it over, and see for yourself if you would consider it a reliable source.
- I did, I came here from WP:AN as an utterly uninvolved admin as I don't think you/Manifest/Beestra and I have had anything but incidental interaction. Others have the standard admin interactions. While this may fit the letter of MEDPOP, I do not think this fits the spirit of what we need in medical articles. There must be better out there. I don't understand the two year (if I'm reading this right) push for this page when time, energy could be spent finding a better source. But we'll agree to disagree and while I oppose it, someone else may feel different. My read here though is there is a fairly strong consensus against it. Star Mississippi 01:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
There must be better out there.
Therein lies the rub. Are you volunteering to find a better source yourself? Because I, in the course of putting in work on this article that nobody else seems to care about, have found a reliable-looking source that I think would improve the article. It is policy-compliant, and from reading the rules of the blacklist and whitelisting, I don't see any reason for it to be rejected. Maybe I could find a better source, and maybe I couldn't - but why is it for you to assign me to that task? Why let perfect be the enemy of "good enough?" If there's no solid reason to bar the use of this source except that "vibes are off," that just seems to me to be a terribly unfair outcome.- And for what it's worth, I've not spent 2 years pushing for this - it's been 3 weeks. And the only reason I've spent that long on it is because I see some value in the source, and I'm attempting to follow the proper protocol to cite it. It was simply an open tab during my research phase for that article - I saw value in it before I knew the whole domain was blacklisted, and I still see some value in it now. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're pushing so hard for this page to be whitelisted when by your admission, the info could come from elsewhere. The source is problematic per multiple established editors. Using a different one would be the best and most viable outcome here. Star Mississippi 13:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please, see my comment above re: WP:MEDPOP. There's nothing wrong with citing popular press like this, even if the information could be gleaned elsewhere. I'm not aware of any policy that says a source requested for whitelisting must be the only source able to be cited for specific information. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Well people, it is about time to wrap this up. Conclusion: some users believe it is perfectly ok to use the "spamlist" to block non-spam websites that don't adhere to their ridiculously high demands, quality-wise.
I am extremely disappointed by Wikipedia and the stupidity by certain people on it. Why not be honest about it? Why not say something like this: "I dislike this website, because it is commercial and it has sponsored content. It has mass-produced articles, written for the masses. Therefore, it should be banished from all use."
Following this logic, *many* websites should be banned from Wikipedia. Technology, gaming, movies, science, history, DIY, beauty, travelling. And definitely, we should ban the tabloids, with each url requiring manual approval by an admin, resulting in a bureaucratic hell and a mountain of a backlog.
Some time ago, it was decided to "deprecate" the Daily Mail, a British tabloid. However, that site is not on the banlist, and you can still link to it. Indeed, on rare occasions, writers still do when they're running low on options while creating content. I am honestly mystified why people seem to think that Verywell, of all brands, is such an evil entity that its name should be cursed for all ages.
You can spin this around, and claim that MY demands for ref-quality are below par. But it is actually YOUR astronomical high threshold for source-quality that is the problem. If users like User:Anachronist believe that the Verywell article in question has no added value, then he/she is blind and stupid. I have no other words for it. - Manifestation (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- When you lower yourself to the point where you resort to ad-homenem attacks, you've lost already. Putting your personal attack on me aside, a distinction is to be made between "no value" and "no added value". For the record, I like the article, I think it has value, and I'm neither against nor in favor of whitelisting. Also I'm surprised that so much discussion has arisen for something that shouldn't be controversial. While I don't see any reason to cite it, it would work well in an 'external links' section. But does an external article written for laypersons really enhance a Wikipedia article written for laypersons? ~Anachronist (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Anachronist, the external link idea is a valid one. Though, this site appears to fail only criteria #1 of WP:ELNO: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." As you pointed out, the verywell article on myolysis is a good, expansive article written for laypeople, and a featured wikipedia article would be a good, expansive article written for laypeople.
- I will say, the guideline on external links says at the top: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." Which is exactly what I'm trying to do. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Manifestation, I appreciate that you're passionate about this issue that I've raised, but the WP:PAs are totally uncalled for, and wholly unhelpful. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
"Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know"
While there does not appear to be consensus to remove the entire verywellhealth.com domain from the spam blacklist at this time, I'd like to focus on the whitelist request as written, which is for the specific Verywell Health article "Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know" (https://www.verywellhealth.com/myolysis-5189197).
PhotogenicScientist, could you please provide an example of the content you would add to the Myolysis article that depends on a citation of this source, and explain how it is compliant with the WP:MEDRS guideline (including WP:MEDPOP)? If there is consensus that the use of this particular article is acceptable, I'll go ahead and add it to the spam whitelist. — Newslinger talk 21:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. In my original draft of this article, I had this verywell article being cited after the sentence "One example of this is laser myolysis, in which a laser is used entirely remove the fibroid, or otherwise clot the blood flow to the fibroid, causing it to die"; this would support the citation I have to NY state dept of health. This style of citation, where more than one source is used, one of them being a popular-press type source, is put forth as an example in WP:MEDRS#Popular press.
- In the course of this discussion, I identified another bit of info that I think this source could be used for - a subsection for 'Ultrasound myolysis' at the same heading level as 'Laparoscopic myolysis'. It wouldn't be much, but it could start out with a small explanation of how MRI and ultrasound are used in this application (from the verywell article, "There is another new type of myolysis that is even less invasive..."). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- For this use case, Verywell Health serves as a tertiary source that summarizes and cites two other pages, "Uterine Fibroids" (New York State Department of Health) and "Uterine Fibroids" (Brigham and Women's Hospital). I'd like to confirm that this use case is in line with the intention of the sentence "One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source." in WP:MEDPOP, so I've asked WikiProject Medicine at WT:MED § Use of Verywell Health for the Myolysis article to join the discussion. If there is consensus that this use case is appropriate, then this Verywell Health page will be added to the spam whitelist. — Newslinger talk 05:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Newslinger, I think that you and @Star Mississippi are pointing towards the same underlying point, namely that editors have different ideas about why we have citations. Oversimplifying things, I've heard three reasons over the years:
- We have citations because they help readers learn more about the subject.
- Obvious consequence: Sources should be selected so that they are useful to readers (e.g., sources written in plain English, widely accessible, free to read).
- We have citations because they help editors determine whether the article content violates any content policies.
- Obvious consequence: Sources should demonstrate whatever that individual RecentChanges patroller's personal view of the rules are. (In practice, that's often higher than what the rules actually say, because if five editors check your work, and the first four think the source is fine, the fifth editor can still revert it for not being good enough in his opinion.)
- Not-so-obvious consequence: Perception matters, and these editors are usually doing little more than glancing at the source, so an article from an impressive-sounding predatory journal or self-published book is more likely to pass this type of review than an excellent website, especially if you know what the various scripts are looking for in the citation.
- Obvious consequence: Sources should demonstrate whatever that individual RecentChanges patroller's personal view of the rules are. (In practice, that's often higher than what the rules actually say, because if five editors check your work, and the first four think the source is fine, the fifth editor can still revert it for not being good enough in his opinion.)
- We have citations because they provide indirect, intangible reputational benefits.
- Obvious consequence: Sources should be selected to be impressive (e.g., journal articles, technical reference works, prominent experts), even if ordinary people can't read the source (e.g., paywalled) or understand what it says even if they do get a copy.
- We have citations because they help readers learn more about the subject.
- It looks like @PhotogenicScientist is saying that they want readers to be able to use this source to get additional information beyond what should be included in an encyclopedia article. It would be possible to cite impressive sources for the same material, but that wouldn't meet the goal of having a pre-vetted, plain-English source linked in the article. It sounds like many other editors here fall into one of the other groups, so they're looking for impressive sources rather than readable ones. Without acknowledging the other side's values, it may be impossible to resolve this.
- For myself, looking at that article and the rate at which readers click through to sources (roughly 1 in 300 page views), I think one thing is clear: we have already spent more time arguing about the status of this page than any reader would spend reading it during the next five years. I don't think we would do any harm by whitelisting this one page. I also don't think it is absolutely necessary to whitelist it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the extremely thoughtful response, WhatamIdoing. I'm glad to learn that the whitelisting request isn't based on an unreasonable reading of WP:MEDPOP, which was something I needed to verify because I don't edit medicine-related articles very often.
- My view on the whitelisting process is that any link that could be plausibly used in an appropriate manner should be whitelisted, if doing so would not introduce an unacceptable risk of abuse. Whitelisting does not guarantee the link's placement in an article, since inclusion is a separate editorial decision determined by consensus on the article. Whitelisting only makes inclusion of the link possible.
- This request seems to be a borderline case, since the Verywell Health page is marginally reliable and the Myolysis article doesn't actually need to cite the page to incorporate the information within the page. The pages summarized by Verywell Health ([1] and [2]) also appear to be written for a layperson audience and, in my opinion, aren't significantly more difficult to understand than the Verywell Health page. If Verywell Health were proposed as a more accessible complement to a peer-reviewed journal article, the justification for inclusion would be clearer, but that isn't the situation here.
- However, since citing the Verywell Health article in the proposed manner doesn't appear to violate any policies, and is considered by some editors to be a standard practice, I would still lean toward whitelisting the link. I don't have a strong opinion on whether Verywell Health should actually be cited in the Myolysis article, but the case for inclusion is acceptably plausible, and I believe we should allow the possibility for sites to be linked in these kinds of borderline cases.
- I'm going to wait for a few more comments to see whether other editors find this argument reasonable. — Newslinger talk 05:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Newslinger just commenting on the practice. Sites get blacklisted because they get spammed or heavily abused (or, in rare cases, because the community decides things are so bad that linking to them should be prohibited). Unlike vandalism, spam is a form of long term abuse, we have site owners coming back after 10+ years asking for delisting, or see them try other tricks. Delisting such sites is often a bad idea, we can whitelist specific targets instead.
However, some of that material for which we require whitelisting is marginally useful, or there are better sources available. I, for one, am very reluctant to honor whitelisting material for which there are better sources or which are marginally useful. The whitelisting is heavily understaffed (as witnessed by how long this request has been standing) and I prefer to use my time on requests that show clear need. That is not going to be helped if we start en-masse requesting marginally useful and replaceable material, requests that typically need more work to investigate in the first place. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)- @Beetstra In that case, I believe you're conflating the purposes of the whitelisting process and WP:RSN. All the material I've found relating to the Spam, Blacklist, and Whitelisting process include no requirement, nor even recommendation, that a source must be a shining example of reliability in order to be considered "not spam." The most common mention of reliability in the spam process is to ask "does this source meet the requirements of WP:RS." Which, in my request, the source does.
- WP:SPAM#Source soliciting: "Does the source meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Reliable sources?"
- WT:SBL: "Does the site have any validity to the project?" (emphasis mine)
- WP:WPSPAM: Zero references to reliability
- WP:ADMINGUIDE/S: Zero references to reliability
- That approach to whitelist requests is not compliant with policy. Moreover, it makes life needlessly difficult for good-faith editors actually trying to improve articles. As is evident by the number of checks to take before blacklisting in the first place (WP:SPBLIST), and as Newslinger pointed out in this 2020 discussion: Blacklisting sites with a legitimate purpose causes substantial collateral damage, by making it more difficult for editors to use a source correctly.
- If you want to cross-examine a source for its reliability, that's what WP:RSN is for. Whitelisting does not and should not require that rigorous of a reliability check. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think Beetstra is responding to a more fundamental and practical reality: There are very few admins willing and able to do anti-spam work, and they sometimes need to reject requests to keep their workload manageable.
- I think we should try to find an alternative link for that article, that meets your main goals (e.g., readable by someone who isn't a medical professional) and isn't on the spam lists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- That's a reasonable stance to take - there isn't enough manpower to do everything. But rather than denying requests like this, I'd rather see the requests remain open, leaving the possibility that another admin shows up to do the work. Telling someone "not now" when there is nobody available to process the request is fine; but telling them "never" when there isn't any concrete criteria against which their request fails isn't right - especially when criteria do exist, but a particular request fails none of them. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- @PhotogenicScientist first, per WAID, I am mainly talking about the manpower issue. Except for the obvious official websites or broad rules (TLDs) you really need to look into stuff and we don’t always have the manpower (or time) to do so. Pushing too many of such requests will only result in them being ignored, and possibly also ones which are more important.
I know that we do not blacklist for unreliability, we blacklist for ‘abuse’. But the two are not things that can be separated. Do we really just have to whitelist a site which is utterly unreliable (I’m not talking about VWH), because we are NOT to discuss reliability? Of course not, we discuss the merit of a site, or the page on it Do we not blacklist a site that was spammed because it may be useful as a source? Of course not, we blacklist to stop the abuse. Dirk Beetstra T C 19:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)- @Beetstra
Do we really just have to whitelist a site which is utterly unreliable (I’m not talking about VWH), because we are NOT to discuss reliability?
You're pushing to an extreme I'm not asking for. Multiple times in this discussion, I've alluded to the marginal reliability of the site, and its compliance with WP:RS. Its the level of scrutiny being given to reliability in this forum that I take issue with. Namely, because I started with a thread on RSN to discuss reliability, and was told to come to the whitelist board instead. Do we not blacklist a site that was spammed because it may be useful as a source? Of course not, we blacklist to stop the abuse.
In fact, blacklisting isn't the always the best answer here, nor the first. The very first check before blacklisting a site (WP:SPBLIST) is to ask "Does the site have any validity to the project?" That sure sounds like we should be discouraged from blacklisting sites that may be useful as an RS. You're also recommended to fight spam on a user-basis first, by handing out warnings, or blocks. It's also recommended to try page protection, like restricting IP editing, or requiring ECP. That's a lot of avenues to exhaust before moving to the blacklist. And I'm sure you'll agree, those avenues were not all tried when this domain was first put on the blacklist in 2018.- What tangible harm is there in whitelisting a marginally reliable site? Especially once it's already been looked into, and the time spent? As I said above, it's not a huge deal to ignore these requests if they're difficult to process - that's the nature of the bureaucracy. But why outright oppose or deny a request like this, at this point?PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- This was a case where sockpuppet accounts were being used - that's the main sort of case where the blacklist gets used. Those other methods are not effective when a sockmaster will just move on to another page with a new account. MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to relitigate the initial blacklisting. But the official result of the sockpuppet case - which raged across 2 whole articles, with 8 edits from 3 users - was to protect both articles involved "for a good long while to stop this nonsense." Blacklisting not mentioned, and perhaps overkill. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- (Responding to additional text added after my reply) The burden here (
An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
) is to show that the Encyclopedia would benefit, not merely not be harmed. It is implied that the benefit would not be available from some other link. If the article in question can be improved without the whitelist, it should be, if only to save on book keeping. - MrOllie (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)It is implied that the benefit would not be available from some other link
Hard disagree. That isn't discernable in any reasonable reading of any policy on reliable sourcing, nor whitelisting nor blacklisting sources. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I was pushing the extreme. But you do agree that we should not whitelist something that was spammed, blacklisted but totally unreliable. So then it is fine to discuss reliability at whitelisting. Here, with a site that is, in your words, marginally reliable we however shouldn’t … ‘Shouldn’t all that's needed for a whitelist request be to show it's not being used as spam?’ .. no, we do have a look at usability, need, and reliability (and I have not, and will not, given my judgement about that for this page, I am just talking about whether or not to look at reliability when whitelisting).
Sometimes the only way to stop a persistent sock spamming perfectly useful links is to blacklist. Again, I am not arguing that for VWH this was such a case (and it was not my decision that this was such a case, nor whether this would become such a case that was stopped early), but we are not here to play whack-a-mole with spam sockfarms, I’m not spending, on the understaffed spam fighting, first weeks of finding, reverting and fighting spam, before considering blacklisting as a last resort. I will just stop them, and I have done so for very respectable organisations, by taking away their sole possibility of spamming their links. Sometimes they realise their loss and don’t continue, sometimes they come and complain, sometimes they come back with redirects, some site owners come back trying on a yearly basis, for more than a decade. It is, literally, paying their bills! Some spammers come and repent, but that is rare. So I do not necessarily agree that we should exhaust those venues, especially for unreliable or marginally reliable sites, experience learns that those venues do not exhaust. (And I have seen sockfarms return as soon as sites get removed from the blacklist).
There is no harm, there is just limited manpower, and we properly scrutinize usability, reliability, and need before whitelisting. We need, unfortunately, to avoid flooding the whitelist (and since it is the same set of editors, also the blacklist), resulting in not doing even the ones that really needed.
(I claim WP:INVOLVED on judgement in this request, anything I say should not be interpreted as in favour or against whitelisting). Dirk Beetstra T C 10:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
- This was a case where sockpuppet accounts were being used - that's the main sort of case where the blacklist gets used. Those other methods are not effective when a sockmaster will just move on to another page with a new account. MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Beetstra
- @Beetstra In that case, I believe you're conflating the purposes of the whitelisting process and WP:RSN. All the material I've found relating to the Spam, Blacklist, and Whitelisting process include no requirement, nor even recommendation, that a source must be a shining example of reliability in order to be considered "not spam." The most common mention of reliability in the spam process is to ask "does this source meet the requirements of WP:RS." Which, in my request, the source does.
- @Newslinger I think you have a good grasp of the purpose of whitelisting, and I agree with pretty much everything you said regarding assessing a requested source's reliability, and its use still being subject to editorial consensus at specific articles. Are you inclined to approve this request? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Since this is a noticeboard discussion, the article can only be whitelisted if there is consensus to do so. In this discussion, although I expressed mild support for whitelisting, it does not look like there is consensus to whitelist the article. I recommend citing "Uterine Fibroids" (New York State Department of Health) and "Uterine Fibroids" (Brigham and Women's Hospital) instead of Verywell Health for this case. — Newslinger talk 20:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Newslinger, most all of the opposition here is based on the rationale that this isn't worth anyone's time, and that I should go find another source. Very little opposition has been made to the actual reliability of the site. Again, I feel like this is because this is the "spam" whitelist noticeboard, not the "reliability" noticeboard. So, the culmination of this whole discussion is going to be "nobody cares enough to help you, go away." That's really nice. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- No editor on Wikipedia can be fortunate enough to see community consensus align with their own views 100% of the time. It does not make sense for me to force the whitelisting when there is no consensus to do so, since it would be reverted and we would end up right where we started. If you feel that my reading of the consensus is incorrect, you are welcome to submit a request for closure for this discussion so that an uninvolved editor can make an independent determination. — Newslinger talk 21:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is this seriously how "consensus" works? I thought consensus wasn't a simple temperature-taking of the majority opinion - but that strength of argument and alignment with policy were considered highly. Lots of people came into this thread to briefly offer their opinion, but didn't stay to much further engage in discussion. In the course of this discussion, I've offered plenty of documentation in support of whitelisting this source. And if you'd go through this whole discussion (which I don't recommend you do, because it's entirely too long for something that "shouldn't be controversial") you'll see a whole lot of editors who offered replies, but quickly backed off when policies or guidelines in contradiction were brought up. Since almost everyone here agrees that whitelisting this link wouldn't do any harm, and that the link has value if not a ton of value to the project, why can't someone simply approve it? It just doesn't make sense. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to think we stepped away in the face of policy, but @PhotogenicScientist you really need to be aware of badgering. Whether you see it that way or not, your push to keep this open until someone agrees with you (
I'd rather see the requests remain open, leaving the possibility that another admin shows up to do the work.
) is badgering. The implication that we're not "doing the work" because we don't agree with you is disingenuous. There is no consensus to whitelist this article. I really suggest you move on to something else. Maybe consensus will change. It is not going to at this moment. Star Mississippi 21:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to think we stepped away in the face of policy, but @PhotogenicScientist you really need to be aware of badgering. Whether you see it that way or not, your push to keep this open until someone agrees with you (
No editor on Wikipedia can be fortunate enough to see community consensus align with their own views 100% of the time
The annoying part here would be watching consensus not align with documented Wikipedia policy. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)- In response to your previous comment, I did read the entire discussion and my initial comment in this subsection (#"Myolysis: Everything You Need to Know") was informed by what every other editor said before me. The spam blacklist guideline provides a wide latitude of discretion and most of the views expressed in this discussion are good-faith judgment calls that do not violate the guideline. But as I said above, if you want a final assessment of this discussion from an uninvolved editor, a closure request is your best bet. — Newslinger talk 21:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Is this seriously how "consensus" works? I thought consensus wasn't a simple temperature-taking of the majority opinion - but that strength of argument and alignment with policy were considered highly. Lots of people came into this thread to briefly offer their opinion, but didn't stay to much further engage in discussion. In the course of this discussion, I've offered plenty of documentation in support of whitelisting this source. And if you'd go through this whole discussion (which I don't recommend you do, because it's entirely too long for something that "shouldn't be controversial") you'll see a whole lot of editors who offered replies, but quickly backed off when policies or guidelines in contradiction were brought up. Since almost everyone here agrees that whitelisting this link wouldn't do any harm, and that the link has value if not a ton of value to the project, why can't someone simply approve it? It just doesn't make sense. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- No editor on Wikipedia can be fortunate enough to see community consensus align with their own views 100% of the time. It does not make sense for me to force the whitelisting when there is no consensus to do so, since it would be reverted and we would end up right where we started. If you feel that my reading of the consensus is incorrect, you are welcome to submit a request for closure for this discussion so that an uninvolved editor can make an independent determination. — Newslinger talk 21:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Newslinger, most all of the opposition here is based on the rationale that this isn't worth anyone's time, and that I should go find another source. Very little opposition has been made to the actual reliability of the site. Again, I feel like this is because this is the "spam" whitelist noticeboard, not the "reliability" noticeboard. So, the culmination of this whole discussion is going to be "nobody cares enough to help you, go away." That's really nice. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- Since this is a noticeboard discussion, the article can only be whitelisted if there is consensus to do so. In this discussion, although I expressed mild support for whitelisting, it does not look like there is consensus to whitelist the article. I recommend citing "Uterine Fibroids" (New York State Department of Health) and "Uterine Fibroids" (Brigham and Women's Hospital) instead of Verywell Health for this case. — Newslinger talk 20:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Newslinger just commenting on the practice. Sites get blacklisted because they get spammed or heavily abused (or, in rare cases, because the community decides things are so bad that linking to them should be prohibited). Unlike vandalism, spam is a form of long term abuse, we have site owners coming back after 10+ years asking for delisting, or see them try other tricks. Delisting such sites is often a bad idea, we can whitelist specific targets instead.
- @Newslinger, I think that you and @Star Mississippi are pointing towards the same underlying point, namely that editors have different ideas about why we have citations. Oversimplifying things, I've heard three reasons over the years:
- For this use case, Verywell Health serves as a tertiary source that summarizes and cites two other pages, "Uterine Fibroids" (New York State Department of Health) and "Uterine Fibroids" (Brigham and Women's Hospital). I'd like to confirm that this use case is in line with the intention of the sentence "One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source." in WP:MEDPOP, so I've asked WikiProject Medicine at WT:MED § Use of Verywell Health for the Myolysis article to join the discussion. If there is consensus that this use case is appropriate, then this Verywell Health page will be added to the spam whitelist. — Newslinger talk 05:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
brautiganlibrary.xyz
- brautiganlibrary.xyz: 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
- brautiganlibrary.xyz/download/holeton-lumber-world1.pdf
- brautiganlibrary.xyz/download/holeton-lumber-world2.pdf
- brautiganlibrary.xyz/dig.html#manuscripts2019
- 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.
- 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.
- Thank you much for looking at this.
--Richard Holeton (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Also I see that many other ".xyz" subdomains have been whitelisted. Richard Holeton (talk) 17:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Holeton:
Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Reliability issues are to be handled differently, and as far as I can see now Richard is pretty well within the limits of WP:COI, and I would not call this request therefore promotional or the links promotional/spammy. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you @Beetstra, and literary scholars and enthusiasts thank you. Richard Brautigan's "Library of Unpublished Works" (as described in the Wikipedia article) now resides at the Clark County Historical Museum, which is the home of the Brautigan Library and the Brautigan Digital Library which lives at brautiganlibrary.xyz/ . Hopefully someone will write an article on the Brautigan Library and its history (maybe I will do it in my "copious free time"!). Richard Holeton (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
kickstarter.com
- 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
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
kickstarter.com/projects/poots/kingdom-death-monster-15/posts/1779351
Requesting an override for this URL on the Hyper Light Drifter article. The post at this URL is from the creator of this video game and was being used as a primary source, which is acceptable per WP:ABOUTSELF. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest you advise the creator to say the same on their website, not its fundraising page. Linking to fundraisers because they are the only place that describes a thing, is a truly terrible idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree with you if the fundraiser were still active, but I don't see the harm in linking to concluded fundraisers, and there are currently seven kickstarters that have been added to the whitelist by admins other than me. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:22, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- @TechnoSquirrel69:
Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Closed fundraisers are fine for primary sourcing (though the significance of the fundraiser needs secondary sourcing). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
northerntransmissions.com
- 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/ben-sidworthy/
Seeking a whitelist for the specific link on a blacklisted website relating to an interview with a musician to support the article Sun Coming Down. Northern Transmissions is a fairly active Canadian music website that features news and primary interview sources with independent bands. Irrespective of whether it is mainstream or editorially robust, the interviews are considerable in volume and as primary sources have value. It seems to have been blacklisted historically relating to SEO spam ([3]) but this is now over a decade ago and the site itself is obviously not posing any threat to this site or for users to visit. Several editors have sought the blacklist to be reversed to no response on the blacklist talk page ([4][5][6]) and has been suggested as a RS by other users ([7]) so I am not really seeing a reason to keep it blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vrxces (talk • contribs) 08:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- I've
Added the specific link to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Any discussions about de-blacklisting the entire site need to happen over there, not here. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- Cheers, thanks for the help. VRXCES (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Vrxces: Just to note, this site was spammed by site owners, and site owners wanted it taken off the blacklist: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2020#www.northerntransmissions.com in spam. Unlike vandalism, spammers will continue, it literally pays their bills. Yes, it is reliable, but much of their info can be found elsewhere as well, and what is needed because it is unique can be whitelisted. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
www.brautiganarchives.xyz
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
brautiganarchives.xyz
- brautiganarchives.xyz: 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 most used website for author Richard Brautigan studies has moved to this URL (for reasons only known to the maintainer). It previously was at www.brautigan.net and was accessed hundreds of times a month. While you may not like the .xyz domain in general, this particular website (containing many hyperlinked pages) is unique in its scope and usefulness and I would like to replace the Wikipedia links to the now inactive www.brautigan.net.
R k nelson (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
- @R k nelson:
Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (it is not that we don't like .xyz, the problem is that there is hardly any control on giving out the TLD, resulting in many spam sites from the TLD. We whitelist good sites quite liberally). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! R k nelson (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
sciencepublishinggroup.com
- sciencepublishinggroup.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:
www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.ajep.20160504.11
- Wanting to cite on Tornado climatology, as it is the source for a tornado study cited by this study ([1]) I.e., the government and academics cite the study and use data from it in academically published papers, so it can be presumed reliable. Hoping to get this whitelisted since to save my edit, I had to remove the link and the article currently indicates via citations that the U.S. government kept track of Bengal tornadoes and not that they just cited a Bengal university study. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- @WeatherWriter, I think you could post a link to that page as doi:10.11648/j.ajep.20160504.11 now (i.e., without worrying about whitelisting).
- Whether you should link to anything from Science Publishing Group, which has apparently been accused of predatory publishing practices, is a separate question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- I know, but that also leaves the citation without a technical URL since the DOI isn't the true URL, hence the whitelist request. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- URLs aren't required in citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: I just added it only using DOI and still filter warned. Whitelist still requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The contents of Special:AbuseFilter can't be changed on this page, and if the AbuseFilter is just warning you, then you're still able to post it.
- If the actual spam list blocked the doi, then I wouldn't have been able to post it in my comment above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is a predatory open access journal. It is not eligible to use as a source. Please find an alternative one. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.
- The publisher is one we would usually wish to avoid. However, the specific article in question may still be acceptable. In this case, WeatherWriter says that "the government and academics cite the study and use data from it in academically published papers", which suggests that this one specific article is probably reliable.
- "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." A publisher that we usually reject might occasionally publish something worthwhile. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- @WeatherWriter, you could use one of the article's alternative hosts, i.e. PreventionWeb, ResearchGate, Academia.edu. Ivan (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- I know, but that also leaves the citation without a technical URL since the DOI isn't the true URL, hence the whitelist request. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Maas, Malcolm; Supinie, Timothy; Berrington, Andrew; Emmerson, Samuel; Aidala, Ava; Gavan, Michael (22 April 2024). "The Tornado Archive: Compiling and Visualizing a Worldwide, Digitized Tornado Database". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. -1 (aop). University of Maryland, College Park, the Storm Prediction Center, the Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms, the School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, the Advanced Radar Research Center, and Stanford University via the American Meteorological Society. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-23-0123.1. Retrieved 26 April 2024.
www.testcoches.es
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
testcoches.es
- testcoches.es: 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 website was blocked in 2017 because, indeed, practices considered SPAM were carried out. This was done due to ignorance of how the Internet in general works, and Wikipedia specifically. After 7 years, things have changed enormously. The website has become one of the reference media for the motor sector, specifically in the electric vehicle sector. Unfortunately, no user or contributor can make references to the website. Which has reliable news, technical information (range, battery capacity, charging power in alternating current and direct current) of electric vehicles, measurements of all the cars on the market, etc. As I mentioned, it is a valuable source of information in the sector, with a good reputation in Spain and other countries. It has 10 years of experience in web format and on YouTube. I request that the exclusion of the site be reviewed because it provides value in the automotive niche. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cglezv (talk • contribs)
Not done Please find another venue to promote your website. OhNoitsJamie Talk 11:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is no intention to promote the site. The only intention is to unlock the possibility that other users/contributors can make references to it. It is a reliable source of technical information and news. I have explained the mistake that was made, I insist, 7 years ago. I would appreciate it if the request is addressed properly. You can see that there have already been contributors who have used the web as a source of information in this article, in its English, Polish and Russian versions. Cglezv (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- What other wikis use as references is of no concern to English Wikipedia. We do not consider blacklist removal requests from users affiliated with the sites in question. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. I just tried to solve something that I did wrong 7 years ago by being honest and transparent. Thank you in any case for your time. Cglezv (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
wepresent.wetransfer.com
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
wepresent.wetransfer.com/stories/work-sucks-i-know-ola-labib
- wepresent.wetransfer.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
Appears to be a blog post by the stand-up comedian Ola Labib, used entirely under WP:ABOUTSELF for content currently annotated with [citation needed] tags at Draft:Ola Labib.--Launchballer 11:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer:
Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 14:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
www.xyz.com.sg
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
www.xyz.com.sg
- xyz.com.sg: 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
This was an old Singaporean company that made AR and video game technologies. Their website's former design went down in early 2023, and the page later only showed a basic file list. I tried to link the original weblink above and an archive url (from 2022?) for it to a page for Singaporean video game companies - List of game companies in Singapore. But the mobile app popped up a warning message noting that it used a spam word of 'xyz'. As the firm is defunct, I need to use these weblinks as proof of its closure. Here is the archive link from October 2, 2022 from Wayback Machine so you can check what it looked like (remove the space between https and rest of address, and the default link after web archive address. I don't want this text auto removed.). https: //web.archive.org/web/20221002074025/http:// www.xyz.com.sg/ ObiKKa (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ObiKKa:
Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --* Pppery * it has begun... 14:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Pppery: I have checked the address link in abstracted intervals on the whitelist page. And then added my edit with the same reflink into that company list page and it worked!
Thank you. This was so smooth. This shows I had to be patient and look for help in the right places and wait. ObiKKa (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Pppery: I have checked the address link in abstracted intervals on the whitelist page. And then added my edit with the same reflink into that company list page and it worked!
- Link requested to be whitelisted:
manga.about.com/od/mangaartistswriters/a/TakehikoInoue.htm
- manga.about.com/od/mangaartistswriters/a/takehikoinoue.htm: 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
For some reason it was blacklisted but it is really useful for the article Vagabond (manga) and Musashi Miyamoto (Vagabond) as the writers interviewed the author. The website is not even used anymore but I gotta use it for the archive. Aoki, Deb. "Interview: Takehiko Inoue". Liveabout. About.com. Archived from [hetp://manga.about.com/od/mangaartistswriters/a/TakehikoInoue.htm the original] on March 3, 2016. Retrieved October 10, 2021. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just updated the format of the request; use of the interview was discussed over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Musashi Miyamoto (Vagabond) where I made the suggestion to get the interview whitelisted (ie. useful primary source on creative origins). Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- The archived version is already whitelisted. I think it would make more sense to cite it as Aoki, Deb. "Interview: Takehiko Inoue". About.com. Archived from the original on March 3, 2016. Retrieved October 10, 2021.
{{cite news}}
: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) (changing|url-status=dead
to|url-status=unfit
) rather than whitelisting a dead URL. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- The archived version is already whitelisted. I think it would make more sense to cite it as Aoki, Deb. "Interview: Takehiko Inoue". About.com. Archived from the original on March 3, 2016. Retrieved October 10, 2021.
petitiononline.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: petitiononline.com/privacy-pets.html
Link requested to be whitelisted: petitiononline.com/petition.html
I am asking for two pages of this petition site to be whitelisted for the purposes of referencing the PetitionOnline article (an article about itself) only. The claims to be illustrated with references to the site itself are admittedly rather trivial (alleged number of petitions hosted, date of interface change following owner change, trademark claim) but more than one reference to the website in question pre-existed my recent edit, so it might be reasonable to keep that at least (it would seem that the blacklisting occurred since May 2017). I already saved my edit with the urls missing, so will need to revisit it after receiving a decision on this request (to either remove the claims sourced through reference to the website or add the whitelisted links). VampaVampa (talk) 10:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @VampaVampa: 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 for the second link in your request. Can you please provide a suitable link? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Beetstra: Thank you for the reply and advice. I have now replaced the second link in my request message above for your review. The index.htm page has only been evidenced by the Internet Archive since 2007 and is barely informative. The difficulty in this case is that I am seeking to use archived links to clarify chronology for the site's development, and the frequency with which the main page (bare domain address) had been saved by the IA is incomparably higher than any of the acceptable landing pages as per the advice. I will be grateful if you can consider the two subpages ("Privacy" and petition.html, the latter being largely identical with content with the main page). I am not aware of all the possible problems with whitelisting a page like this, but the website in question might not be an issue going forward since it has been virtually defunct for almost 10 years now (the main page remains with a shutdown message, no petitions are being added). I will appreciate a review and if possible an exception for historic documentation purposes. VampaVampa (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- @VampaVampa:
Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, that resolves my request. VampaVampa (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
elainecarroll.xyz
elainecarroll.xyz: 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: elainecarroll.xyz
I was attempting to add a website link to the page Elaine Carroll, but was blocked because the website, www.elainecarroll.xyz, was flagged. I looked at the local and global lists and did not see this specific site listed on either. I assume there is a wider block on the .xyz TLD, but I'm not sure where the appropriate place to resolve this is as there seem to be multiple places to request exceptions/removals/overrides for these spam lists. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Done Have checked that this is the official website of the subject of the BLP.
Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. – robertsky (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
mybroadcasting.streamb.online
Link requested to be whitelisted: mybroadcasting.streamb.online
This is a legitimate domain used by radio station CKYY-FM (https://www.country89.com/) for online streaming. It would be ideal to have this domain whitelisted so the Wikipedia page for this station can have a functioning "Listening Live" hyperlink in its Infobox. Wcreed88 (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Wcreed88:
Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for taking care of this. The URL link to this domain now works.
- Wcreed88 (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
mystrikingly.com
Link requested to be whitelisted: diligent-canary-k5sq9c.mystrikingly.com
Dear Sirs/Ma'am Editors,
There is a Wikipedia page about (me). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gold
I have been in contact with a Wikipedia editor - Valereee who has helpfully suggested I ask you to whitelist (my) website domain name please.
I used to use www.edgold.co.uk but this has been cancelled because I no longer wish to pay to use it. Instead, I would like to use a 'strikingly.com' website URL but I have been told that Wikipedia has blacklisted 'strikingly' domains because they are often used by spammers. In this instance, would you please allow this domain to be whitelisted and displayed for (my) Ed Gold's website. It is useful for readers to be able to see a website and a small part of (my) work.
I write it in bits because Wikipedia won't allow it to be written in a complete sentence:
https://
diligent-canary-k5sq9c.
mystrikingly.com/
Thank you. Ed 82.153.27.162 (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC) EddieLeVisco
- I can confirm I have had multiple interactions with this COI editor, who has complied with our COI editing policies. (And as an aside has contributed 140 of his photographs to commons.) I'd like to be able to add his website to the article about him. Valereee (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
energytracker.asia/about
Link requested to be whitelisted: energytracker.asia/about
I've been in discussions with this organization about doing a wp:Wikipedian in Residence project with them. In this project we will not add citations or links to energytracker.asia, or edit/create any articles about the organization or its people. (The project would have them lend their subject matter experts to help me improve articles using top-quality sources like IPCC reports.)
I'm asking for the About page to be whitelisted so that I can link to it on my user page if/when I announce that I've started the Wikipedian in Residence role.
Regarding the events of last October that led to the blacklisting, I spoke with the managing editor at Energy Tracker Asia (ETA), who asked all the current team members if they had added links or citations to Wikipedia. Everyone says they have no knowledge of what happened and have not used an account named “Johnasonlily”.
As far as we can tell, whoever was responsible for the spamming and socking last year was not affiliated with ETA. The managing editor has instructed everyone in the organization, and every PR and marketing agency it works with, to never add energytracker.asia links or citations to Wikipedia.
(Courtesy ping to Graham87). Cheers and thanks for considering this, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Clayoquot: Thanks for the ping. I support this request in principle and I'm OK with whatever is agreed to here. I don't usually edit the whitelists so I think it's best if I let the regular editors decide. Graham87 (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly I wish more people were willing to edit the spam whitelist. There are too few regular editors here. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Clayoquot:
Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you both! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)