MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2021/01

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

casino.ru/istoriya-gemblinga-na-ukraine/[edit]

Gambling in Ukraine – the article in English (mentioned above) is poor and need a lot of work and references from native speaker’s sites will be good. In fact there is nothing about new gambling law in wiki article in English. I’m working on that part of article about 2020 law in Ukraine, collected a lot of materials and want to use this website to improve the quality of article and to share with English speakers important things about new law. I found this site useful. There are unique interviews, articles. Will appreciate your opinion. Waiting for reply to continue work on that article. --SmurFF2020 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

awardsandwinners.com[edit]

I wanted to use this link to add as a reference in the Nicole (German singer) and Echo Music Prize article.

awardsandwinners.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: http://awardsandwinners.com/winner/?name=nicole&mid=/m/01w7tkh -- GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GravityIsForSuckers: no Declined, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248#Awardsandwinners, unreliable and possibly even circular . --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Thank you for reviewing this request -- GravityIsForSuckers (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking link[edit]

I want my article to publish without blocking google link how?? Sumaya farahath (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sumaya farahath, Wikipedia is not for advertising. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not advertisement.its really legendary personality. Harish varma1 (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harish varma1, please read the instructions at the top of this page, we need to know what you are talking about. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sumaya farahath:  Not done due to lack of reply. --Stifle (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right Wing News Sources[edit]

Wikipedia seems to have become a left wing thought silo, based on recent attempted clarifications to politicized issues surrounding the 2020 election. I recommend that the administrators thoroughly review the media landscape of what news sources are considered acceptable. There is widespread misunderstanding of the legitimacy of the “right wing”. As many editors are leftists, the entire platform has slid dangerously to the left. Haerdt (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart The Gateway Pundit NaturalNews

To name a few. Otherwise we are really limiting our political perspective when building this knowledge base Haerdt (talk) 06:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Including sources known to publish abject lies is not "limiting our political perspective". Please review WP:RSP and the archives of WP:RSN. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Haerdt: those sources were all blacklisted after community consensus. That means that the community does not want them, that the community does not think they are reliable (or even, that they are regularly completely wrong). And I am afraid that your evaluation (complaint?) is single sided, we would do exactly the same with left wing news sources if the community finds them unreliable, or plainly wrong. Your assumption of bias is wrong there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to define:
  • Breitbart, quote from article: "The site has published a number of conspiracy theories and intentionally misleading stories."
  • The Gateway Pundit, quote from article: "The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories."
  • Natural News, quote from article: "is an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory and fake news website known for promoting pseudoscience and far-right extremism."
(all my bolding). Sources that have intentionally misleading stories, falsehoods and fake news are not sources that we use in Wikipedia, and therefore they are either strongly deprecated, or outright blacklisted (where material that is deemed suitable by community consensus can be included through whitelisting). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CNN has also published conspiracy theories and discussed them on air openly. Don’t you pay attention to that corporation? The right wing news sources losted above are just as far to the right as CNN is to the left. You all need to tale a long hard look in the mirror to see what you are doing to information communication. For the past four years, people of your political understandong have cried that POTUS is a fascist, yet here is fascism in practice. Haerdt (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haerdt, In fact, there has been an RfC for CNN, Fox News, etc. The community also had their word for that. You are always free to start a new RfC on any of them. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Haerdt: Anything is up for discussion, as Beetstra pointed out, and an RfC is the correct place to do that, not here. I do request, though, that when you make statements like "CNN has also published conspiracy theories...", that you cite examples; unsupported accusations weaken your argument. I also ask you not to paint everyone here with a broad brush ("people of your political understandong [sic]"); you do not know me, nor are you familiar with my beliefs/opinions. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 15:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requst is  Denied. There is strong consensus that the sites mentioned are not reliable or appropriate sources for Wikipedia. See WP:BREITBART and the subsequent entries on that page for those two sites.
    The first step in a theoretical journey to requesting removal of these from the blacklist would be to gather a consensus at WP:RSN that they are in fact reliable. This page will implement any consensus there. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specific article on Project Gutenberg request[edit]

I'm drafting a list type article of all of the College of Wooster's Greek societies, past and present. One of the references which appears highly valuable for the article, and which in my draft (in my sandbox) I've been able to reference a couple dozen times, is at:

The specific article is:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: self.gutenberg.org/articles/phi_omega_sigma_(college_of_wooster)

I wish to add this specific link to the Whitelist, as it appears to be reliable and I've not found an alternative that I may use as an article citation. This proposed reference confirms many facts where I reference other sources. But it is the new information that this reference provides that would be helpful for my completing the article. Jax MN (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax MN: no Declined, self.gutenberg.org is a self-published source, and many articles there are sourced from 'free' sources like Wikipedia (see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May_2018#World_Heritage_Encyclopedia_mirrors). In line with that discussion at the spam blacklist, also this article states "Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source, sourced from Wikipedia". I do however have difficulty figuring out which revid from our article this is. Phi_Omega_Sigma_(College_of_Wooster) is now a redirect, it was before directed to Student social organizations at the College of Wooster#Phi Omega Sigma .28.CE.A6.CE.A9.CE.A3.29. That article is now also a redirect but before that happened that article was moved to List of student social organizations at the College of Wooster. Frustratingly, that article is now also a redirect, but it has a history. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Frustrating? Sure is. If I had known that the Gutenberg site and all articles on it were verboten, I wouldn't have laced so many usages into my draft article. It was darn good. I'm attempting to fix the problem you noticed, where a previous hatnoted page off of the main College of Wooster article had previously listed the Greeks, but had been deleted. I don't have visibility to deleted Wikipedia articles... It would be useful to review them to determine the basis on which they were deleted, and perhaps to utilize some of their writing as a base for an improved article as I clean up these various fraternity and collegiate pages. That's the intent - a re-write of the previous page with far better sourcing and clean formatting. Any further suggestions? I didn't want to open up the Gutenberg website except for that specific item. Jax MN (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jax MN, we start to blacklist Wikipedia mirrors as they get often mis-used in circular referencing, and this set (as linked) was part of that effort. Which is the deleted article, I can have a look what we can rescue (as long as the reason is not copyvio or other major problems, I can userfy it for you)? Dirk Beetstra T C 08:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not clear on why you still want the link whitelisted. As noted, clearly, this is a wikipedia mirror of long-deleted material. It cannot be used as a source. To be transparent, this particular set of mirrors was blocked for exactly the reason that is generating this conversation; they have set up a deceptive series of websites in order to mask the original source of the material, and the attribution is deliberately vague. As noted, if you're wanting to re-create the original article, we can move the history over to draftspace, and you can work to address the concerns of the [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of student social organizations at the College of Wooster|AFD that removed the material]. Kuru (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I did not realize the article itself had been a discarded Wiki article. I will use the references it contained with the intent of posting a more useful article of my own. Thanks all. Jax MN (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed work on the new page, now up in mainspace. It has a slightly different title than the original, as its scope has changed. Now: List of fraternities and sororities at the College of Wooster. As I reviewed the predecessor page it appeared that while reasonably comprehensive it was not referenced properly. I've corrected that issue. Jax MN (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed exception of specific link to the 'academicjournals.org' site[edit]

From the site academicjournals.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com , I would like to use the link Link requested to be whitelisted: academicjournals.org/article/article1380125484_Ingale%20and%20Hivrale.pdf as a reference for the natural occurrence of several substance. Academicjournals.org has articles on various topics. My guess is that it is not this kind of topic that got the whole site blacklisted - and should the whole site be blacklisted? Leave a note on my talk page. Carystus (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

gilad.online[edit]

gilad.online: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com I would like to use material from this site on Keep Talking (group) and Gilad Atzmon; possibly others. Atzmon has a BLP with almost 90 references. However, most are hostile and some have an approach of misinterpreting or misquoting what he has written. There is something of a WP:BLPSTYLE issue. To enable WP:NPOV, I would like the ability to cautiously use what he has published i.e. WP:BLPSELFPUB, bearing in mind the caveats. Much of what he has written is available on his website, while there are few other online sources. I could request a specific page e.g. Link requested to be whitelisted: gilad.online/writings/2017/11/11/balfour-declaration-history-and-concealment-a-talk-by-gilad-atzmon but the issues are similar for other pages, so I am requesting that the entire site be whitelisted. There is a general presumption that readers can access the material of the subjects of articles: WP:ELYES and WP:ELOFFICIAL which is arguably supportive of this request. Jontel (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jontel: testing: https://gilad.online --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jontel: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, this is blacklisted by a complex rule, it may not be easy to write a rule to whitelist all (I may give it a go when I have better access). I doubt whether whitelisting the domain negates this blacklist rule. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Thanks for what you have done so far. I was able to add the specific page and the home page and another page from the site to my sandbox, so perhaps you have fixed it to some extent, anyway. If it does not work on articles in future, I can try removing it at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. However, I would be happy for you to continue working on whitelisting the domain and its contents if you feel able to. Thanks agains for your time on this. Jontel (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's caught by .*\.(ga|cf|ml|gq|online|site)/.*?\d{4,5}[-/]\d{1,2}[-/]\d{1,2}.* at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It's intended for other subdomains at .online and blocks url's with a date, e.g. https://gilad.online/writings/2021/1/7/i-am-so-happy-for-america. The whitelist rule \bopen\.online\b seems to permit all url's at open.online, e.g. https://www.open.online/2021/01/09/covid-19-sicilia-zona-arancione-rafforzata/. Wouldn't it work to simply whitelist \bgilad\.online\b? And couldn't these three be removed when \bopen\.online\b is already whitelisted:
\bopen\.online\/primo-piano\/2019\/01\/29\/video\/congresso_piu_europa_ferrandelli_cappato-125638\/
\bopen\.online\/primo-piano\/2019\/01\/28\/news\/tutte_le_cose_che_non_tornano_nel_congresso_di_europa-123992\/
\bopen\.online\/cronaca\/2019\/01\/29\/video\/piu_europa_tabacci_replica_truppe_cammellate-125397\/
Maybe whitelisted sites at .online could be combined in one entry. Something like \b(express|gilad|open).online\b. I haven't edit the blacklist or whitelist and have limited knowledge about them. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

gilad.online full[edit]

  • Regex requested to be whitelisted: \b(express

Combining three, removing other .online rules in the same edit (semi-manual script edit). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I made a typo earlier. Sorry. \b(express|gilad|open).online\b should have been \b(expres|gilad|open).online\b with one s to cover the existing entry expres.online/archive/main/2017/02/08/227083-desyatka-ty-chlenkor-akademiyi-nauk. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PrimeHunter, I did not notice that one. I'll repair. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

kickstarter.com funding page[edit]

Hello there. I'm working on a Wikipedia page for TankTrouble, a popular browser game, and for the Kickstarter section (in my sandbox) I want to mention what amount that TankTrouble needed to raise to bring the game online. Problem is, the only source that I can find is on that Kickstarter page. Not even on TankTrouble's website can it be found. The Kickstarter ended about 5 years ago. It would be very helpful to have the link whitelisted!

Note: Sorry if my formatting is bad/wrong, my first day editing on Wikipedia.

Asger Finding (talk | contribs) 14:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asger Finding, I went through the article in your userspace. As it currently stands it runs a large risk of deletion since the article is completely primary sourced. This kickstarter would add yet another primary source to the article. Wikipedia writes about subjects when they are notable, which means that there should be sources independent of the subject talking about it. The article does not make that clear at all.
I will not decline this yet, as this may be the only source for this specific piece of info, but I would ask you to send this article through WP:AFC and return here when the article is accepted in mainspace. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra Yes, I was a bit worried that the sources in my article aren't too great. But all in all, there is not a lot of documentation for TankTrouble. The best secondary (sorta) sources that I could use, would be The Lab Report, an independent newspaper documenting news in TankTrouble; but it is half-run by moderators of the site, and me, and has only existed since 2017, which clearly isn't enough to cover all the history. Asger Finding (talk | contribs) 12:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asger Finding, I am sorry, but if there are no really independent, reliable sources, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject. As the article is now, there is a good chance it would be speedy deleted when moved to mainspace. You really need those sources. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra Oh, okay. No problem, I understand. As a final request, can I ask you if you know of any other, more game-centered wikia sites? fandom.com has potential, but I'm not an administrator there, and the name is spelled wrong :/ Thanks for the help :) Asger Finding (talk | contribs) 14:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Publishing at List of scholarly publishing stings[edit]

There's a broken link that's busted in a citation template (www.davidpublisher.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/5f6ff8b1e7da7.pdf), causing an error. The link is legitimate, as an example of a journal that got caught by a sting.

This also seems a bit overkill to have it blacklisted, given David Publishing is already caught by Special:AbuseFilter/891. But whitelisting on that specific article should be enough for now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Also as per your own remark, these are better blacklisted, and the filter is also catching their DOIs. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

bacau.net[edit]

bacau.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.bacau.net/fluier-final-la-liga-a-iv-a-umbro-cs-caiuti-e-campioana/

I wanted to use this link to add as a reference in the 2010–11 Liga IV Bacău and Liga IV Bacău article.-- Florin (talk) 12:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Dramatica at Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]

encyclopediadramatica.wiki: 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 ,br. While the site should 100% stay blacklisted, in the infobox, per WP:NOTCENSORED, there should be a link to the home page of the site, encyclopediadramatica.wiki, inside the infobox. I am unable to add that as it is blacklisted. Steve M (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve M: no Declined, ArbCom decision - no links to ED. Currently we have only one link whitelisted for use as a reference, which I have updated to .wiki. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, The reference link is still not working. When I attempt to put it into the infobox, it gives a blacklist error. And I fully agree the whole site should be blacklisted, as it only exists to troll and harass users. I am just saying that the reference link is not working for some reason, and that there have to be nowiki tags for it to save. Steve M (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Steve M, now you are talking about a reference, earlier about the infobox? Dirk Beetstra T C 20:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, I am not saying to use it as a reference. I am talking about the link in the infobox, similar to how goatse had a direct link to goatse despite the site being a notorious shock site. There should be a direct link to the homepage in the infobox, like all articles on websites here do. Steve M (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Steve M, OK, so that is what is declined, ArbCom decision. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2021/01&oldid=1005230999"