MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2016/08

Sherry Jackson interview - Examiner.com
One interview, in three parts, for use in Sherry Jackson, a WP:BLP.

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 which lurks, inaccurate and unreferenced, in the article.

The interview will be a 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 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.)

The interviewer is an NYU film studies graduate [www.examiner.com/classic-movie-in-new-york/mel-neuhaus] with apparently a lot of experience writing about film but no paid experience as a film critic or journalist. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

kifdatabase.no-ip.org


Requested Wiki Entry: Shogi strategy and tactics (and possibly others if en.wikipedia editors become motivated enough to increase the shogi strategy coverage to the level of western chess or ja.wikipedia's shogi articles...)

Reason for Request: Contains hundreds of recorded shogi games by professional players that are grouped into 16 opening classifications. It's useful for folks studying opening strategies. There's nothing else like it. (The no-ip.org is globally blacklisted.) – ishwar  (speak)  15:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * . There was nothing else quite like my statistical markets analysis blog either, while it existed. A self-hosted site on a dynamic IP address? And the root domain name kifdatabase.no-ip.org going to a Linux test page? Is the person who maintains it and comes up with these categories a notable expert on Shogi, with significant coverage?
 * If such a reference gets a more permanent home (like one of the many free blog sites available), we can revisit this. And, I'm skeptical that the information on that isn't already available elsewhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , so what exactly is the objection? Are you worried about spam? Rejecting my rationale? You don't actually say.


 * The person who maintains it doesn't need to be an expert or notable. The classification of opening moves is traditional and they are indicated in newspapers or by TV announcer/analysts when televised.


 * To be more specific by my 'There's nothing else like it' comment, I meant that there isn't a database as large as this one that has the game records categorized by traditional openings. I'm sure that there are other collections of game records online and that game records are kept by the Japan Shogi Association in print form. So, I'm skeptical that another website that does exactly what this site does is already available elsewhere. The site was brought to my attention by someone who promote shogi outside of Japan. He said that the site is currently popular with amateur shogi players in Japan. – ishwar  (speak)  06:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm open to being convinced to change my mind, and I welcome other admins to chime in.
 * My objection is mainly grounded in WP:ELNO. It's a self-hosted, self-published site, and there are alternatives to get the information on it. Mere convenience isn't a sufficient reason to whitelist. On top of that, it isn't even on an established IP address to host a real domain name on &mdash; and this databse doesn't even have a website; it's on a sub-page of a sub-domain that doesn't even have its own landing page! This just screams 'some guy's personal hobby site maintained on a home server' to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * ❌ due to lack of reply. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

www.ticketmaster.com/creditcardentry
Adding www.ticketmaster.com/creditcardentry as source to section Ticket resale on paperless ticket entry, as well as name change of the system. Shaded0 (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Drowners interview


I was updating the Drowners page and used this interview to reference the recording period of the second album. Can it please be white listed? Karst (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Anirudh Kala profile - Mind.Plus
The page refers to the profile of Anirudh Kala, a WP:BLP.

This link points to the profile of Dr Anirudh Kala, a prominent Psychiatrist, on the website his latest venture Mind Plus. It is not a content aggregation website but a proper website of the rehab clinic and mental health wellness hospital started by Dr Anirudh kala. Websupplements (talk) 08:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)websupplements 13:57, 04 July 2016 (UTC+5:30)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Mrskin.com
Please white list the following link as it contains information relevant to the Samantha Ryan page.

Holanthony (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

dailyreckoning.com/author/spetranek/


reasonable addition to EL section of Stephen Petranek, listing articles by the subject, a respected journalist. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * being reasonable is not an inclusion standard. It is a list of articles by this journalist on this server, is that really an unmissable inclusion, where the article does not even state that he is reasonably/specifically known for his publications for dailyreckoning?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your line of reasoning. If the site were not blacklisted, I would have added the links, and I doubt anyone would have removed it. His work there is not mentioned in his bio, because I can't cite the page. On what basis should that page be blacklisted? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What I mean is, that the page you wrote does not contain any reason why people think that his work for the dailyreckoning is notable (it is not even mentioned). Still you want to include it as an external link.  Moreover, one could include a list of his works, if they are notable enough, in the article (or in a separate article).  That means that the information can be included, and it is therefore not necessary to link to the linkfarm either.  If the list of his works is not notable enough, why then link to it, it does not add anything that is apparently worth mentioning.  The burden is on you to be able to give a reason for inclusion, otherwise it is plain linkfarming.  So the question remains is: why is this work worth linking (as an external link)?
 * Regarding the "is work there is not mentioned in his bio, because I can't cite the page" - do you want to add it as an external link, or do you need it as a citation?
 * The link was blacklisted because the holding company finds it necessary to continuously (over a course of 5-10 years by now ...?) to spam Wikipedia with their link / their articles. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Both. The page is not a "link farm", the articles are hosted on that site. And I asked why the page should be blacklisted, not why the site was. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * we do not reproduce external links if they are already used as a reference (I just removed such a duplicate). If you want to use this as a reference then that is a different question than the original question.  Regarding linkfarming - at the time of request there were just as many external links as paragraphs in the article, and when counting the requested external link even more links than paragraphs.  That would make the article more linkfarm than prose.  Anyway, for use as a reference:  to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do reproduce such links, in accordance with WP:EL, when they "are specifically devoted to the topic, contain multiple subpages, and do not meet the criteria for links to be avoided.". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * - and that is the caveat - "... do not meet the criteria for links to be avoided" - WP:ELNO #1 "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." - this is a webpage that contains a small paragraph which does not provide any information beyond what is already in the article. See also the intro of WP:EL "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/\d+


This is the U.K. Parliamentary petitions website. I wanted to add to Murder of Giulio Regeni a citation of petition 120832, Statement on UK steps to ensure a full investigation of Giulio Regeni's death ale (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * that is an active petition. Petitions hardly ever (close to never) meet our inclusion standards for linking, and that is especially true for active petitions.  The mention of petitions (including, and especially, active ones) in Wikipedia articles is only warranted when independent, secondary sources have written about the petition, and what those references wrote about the petition is enough to show notability of the petition.  . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, beyond 10,000 signatures the U.K Parliament —which should be considered an independent source in its own right— will have replied. Petition data can be obtained in machine readable format by appending   after the petition number.  That record includes a   datum so it would be possible to verify automatically. I don't think banning official Parliament data is cool of Wikipedia... ale (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a reference in itself for the number. However, that number is only notable if independent sources have reported about the petition.  People can write out petitions for anything.  See WP:SOAPBOX.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Sci-Hub for its own article


Requesting whitelist for the main pages in the Sci-Hub article. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Archiving
As these pages tend to become really long, I was considering another mechanism for archiving these. What about making transcluded pages for the accepted, denied and stale requests, which are then automatically archived by one of the archiving bots (after 2-4 weeks or so). I will then set-up the gadget from the section above to be able to move the handled requests into one of those three depending on whether there is 1) ✅ or, 2) or  or 3) the rest.  It would take away a lot of hassle on these pages (since we here use a two-phase archiving system which none of the archiving bots currently likes).  Thoughts?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * As I replied above, I don't see the point in maintaining separate sections for approved, done, added, etc. requests. If we need separate sections at all, let's just have pending and answered, nothing else.


 * An analogous page would be WP:REFUND, where requests to undelete can also have multiple categories of answers, but the requests are simply archived. If anyone wants to search for them, they can just search the archive. The advantage on that page is that it has enough participation from administrators that any request old enough to archive will already have been answered, so the standard talk page archiving bot is sufficient. Here, it isn't so simple.


 * Isn't there a way to have a bot archive a stale section that has had one of the 4 tags in it and no activity for, say, 1 month, regardless of where the section is on the page? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, didn't look at it this way. I'll consider whether I can just write something for a more straightforward archiving.  I was already considering sub-pages so standard archiving could be applied to the subpages, while transclusion here keeps things like it was before.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I advocate keeping it simple to use and maintain. I'd be happy if this page had no major sections at all, just un-answered requests and answered requests that haven't yet aged off. I don't visit WP:ANI much, but doesn't that page have stale sections (like, no activity for a couple of days) be archived automatically regardless of where they are on the page? ~Amatulić (talk) 02:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll ask on the bot requests to see whether we can have a bot to handle this a bit more sophisticated (archiving everything after 2 weeks - the problem is that we have two subsections, one for requested additions and one for requested removals (which is more of an issue on WT:SBL and on the XLinkBot request page)). I'll also have a second look at the one-click-archiver-system (maybe cloning it, and adapting it for these pages), see if that helps here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Bot_requests. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought you were referring just to this page (is there a removal section? I never noticed). The only existing analogy I can think of is WP:RFPP, which has separate sections for requests for protection and unprotection, and the sections get archived automatically and independently as far as I can tell. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was originally only referring to this page, but other pages follow the same system and are also done manually. WP:RFPP is similar, though everything gets archived into one section, regardless of which subsection they came from (diff - the request for Template:Xt is in the 'reduction' section, though in diff just combined with the other two 'protect' sections).
 * The removal section here is hardly used, but on WT:SBL it is quite heavily used (people do care to get pages from the blacklist, things that are whitelisted though unused stay generally whitelisted regardless unless they get abused). As the archives here are quite heavily used (by me at least; especially on the blacklist, but also the 'other' whitelist requests on a current request) I'd like to keep them separated as add and remove requests).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I've set up archiving. Lets see, we can always undo and delete the archives and start over. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Waiting to see what will happen. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have demoted all levels by one, so that actual requests are second-level headers. It appears that the bot is ignoring the 3rd level headers, and that the second level sections never go over 2 weeks due to new requests being added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems supports specifying the header level, so I've changed the page to use that bot instead. Should work now. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, looking forward to get rid of the old requests, finally. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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


 * 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 (on our blacklist's talk page) may be useful information. -- A. B. (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Per d:Wikidata:Notability, MediaWiki pages are not supported in Wikidata. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple pages under bmihealthcare.co.uk
This entire site was added to the blacklist due to some refspam, despite it already having valid use in Wikipedia. Nonetheless removal from the blacklist has been declined. Consequently I'm asking for following pages to be whitelisted, since they were already in valid use at the time the site was blacklisted:


 * www.bmihealthcare.co.uk for BMI Healthcare, to provide a link to the company's official website
 * www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/about-bmi/corporate-information for BMI Healthcare, as a source
 * www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/about-bmi/management-team for BMI Healthcare, as a source
 * www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/graphics/images/about_BMI/CSR-Brochure-V5.pdf for BMI Healthcare, as a source, plus its archive.org page since the original page no longer resolves
 * www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/international for BMI Healthcare, as a source
 * www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/consultant/consultantdetails?p_name=Adrian-Newland&p_id=40341 for Adrian Newland, as a source, plus its archive.org page since the original page no longer resolves
 * www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/about-bmi/history for General Healthcare Group, as a source

(I can't add explicit archive.org links as the blacklist spots the embedded URL and blocks the link, sorry!)

—me_and 09:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)



This should do it all. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Blog on branch.io



 * would be great to cite for the article on deferred deep linking.

Seamonstr (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Review on HubPages


Wanting to add this HubPages review of The Great Silence to the critical reception section. PatTheMoron (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Page regarding potential merger of SEIU and AFSCME


I tried to add the following text, and it would not save as this was on the blacklist. This is an important development that should be noted in those articles. Political action and potential merger with AFSCME In August, 2016, SEIU and AFSCME announced a partnership and a potential merger. |title=Labor News > Two massive unions, SEIU and AFSCME, announce partnership, potential merger Two massive unions, SEIU and AFSCME, announce partnership, potential merger |author=PAI |newspaper=People’s World |date=August 1, 2016 |acessdate=August 23 2016 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 11:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are trying to add an url shortener. The link you want to add is http://peoplesworld.org/two-massive-unions-seiu-and-afscme-announce-partnership-potential-merger/.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. It worked.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)