MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2023/08

The Sword Interviews Unblocked


I am requesting that this interview on thesword.com – WAKEFIELD POOLE INTERVIEW PART 2: ON HIS MASTERPIECE, ‘BIJOU,’ AND HIS 30 YEARS OF CELIBACY – be unblocked so that I can use it on Wakefield Poole's Wikipedia page. It includes detailed information from an interview with the director about his life and projects.



As well, I'm requesting that this interview on thesword.com - TALKING WITH LEGENDARY ‘NIGHT AT THE ADONIS’ EDITOR BOB ALVAREZ - be unblocked so that I can use it on the Hand In Hand Films Wikipedia page. It includes details on the founding on this film production company and its financiers.Digitalkidd (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)digitalkidd
 * the problem here is that Wikipedia doesn't consider interviews to be reliable sources, because Wikipedia isn't interested in what article subjects have to say about themselves. Interviews aren't appropriate sources to verify statements of fact in an article, especially if the interview is the only available source of such statements. ~Anachronist (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe my updates will adhere to Wikipedia policy on interviews (Interviews). Wikipedia articles use interviews all of the time as part of building background information so I disagree with what you seem to imply here that we just ignore all interviews as a resource. Digitalkidd (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would add that both of these interviews were conducted by Adam Baran who is a recognized LGBTQ journalist and documentarian so they should be considered to meet the threshold of standards. Digitalkidd (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

thelionclub.xyz
This domain is the only legitimate website for the Lion Club, for which a page already exists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Club) and is currently in the earlier stages of updating and editing. If the page is going to be able to cite the organization itself this particular xyz domain would have to be whitelisted.

Adding this again because it was archived without result. Hgallo9 (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

xyz.xyz


xyz.xyz is the official website for the registrant of many gTLDs. The article for the .xyz would benefit from a citation about the ownership of other gTLDs (found on their website). Vallode (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

artofliving.org
Hi, I am trying to add some information about how mudras are used in yoga and was unable to add a source from the Art of Living website www.artofliving.org/us-en/yoga/benefits/mudras It says that website is blacklisted? But if the Art of Living organization is a proponent of yoga, and I am trying to describe a yoga practice (mudras) done currently why wouldn't it be allowed? The Mudras page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudra currently has NO discussion of mudra hand gestures at all. Including this source would mean I could add a lot of information to the mudras page about mudra hand gestures *in practice* currently. If someone could please explain this to me or help me in the process of citing this source I would appreciate it. Thank you. Hemmingweigh (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * . Artofliving.org was blacklisted on Wikipedia in September 2018 due to spamming, and the fact that there was no encyclopedically relevant content on that site. I would say, looking at your proposed link, that it would not be considered a reliable source, treading into credulous WP:FRINGE claims that violate WP:MEDRS. If you disagree, please start a discussion on WP:RSN to get a community consensus of that source's reliability. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Anachronist, I did not know about the WP: Fringe and WP:MEDRS guideline. After reading through them a bit I think the artofliving.org webpage still has value to add as a secondary source which has compiled information from various sources. Could the issue of medical credibility be circumnavigated through simply stating that this is what is believed by organizations such as the Art of Living? I am not attempting to cite this website in the same way as I would use a medical textbook, I am trying to communicate information that has been compiled in a few sources about mudras. These sources may not follow the same citation practices as Western academia, but nevertheless I would consider this website a secondary source based on what I've read so far. Please let me know if there is something else I should read to further refine my understanding. Based on your response I will share my perspective on WP:RSN. Thanks much. Hemmingweigh (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If artofliving.org is compiling information from other reliable sources, then it would be best to cite those other sources instead. If artofliving.org is synthesizing their own conclusions from information in reliable sources, which aren't asserted by those sources, then artofliving's medical assertions are not actually backed up by those sources. Either way, artofliving.org isn't citable.
 * If the link was whitelisted and you cited it, it would quickly be removed by editors who take a strict view of WP:MEDRS compliance on Wikipedia, and they would be justified in doing so.
 * Regarding your question about attributing claims as beliefs of the organization, that might be possible, but probably more so in the Art of Living Foundation article, rather than in Mudra. I'd like to see others weigh in.
 * As I suggested earlier, you can start a discussion on WP:RSN, present your argumets above, and get a consensus from the community about whether the source can be used. That discussion would be needed before this whitelist request can proceed further. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

vistamalls.com.ph
Official website of Vista Malls. Also needs to be whitelisted to be used as reference in List of shopping malls in the Philippines. Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * per MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests, we would need an about-page or a full url (including an index.htm) of the index page. Can you please provide a suitable link?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt response. Here are the links :
 * - Homepage
 * - About
 * Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I am only doing the about, the other one is basically still a negation of the blacklist rule.  to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

famousbirthdays.com (original owner)


As an administrator, I could add this entry myself, but I want other admins to assess.

In Talk:Famous Birthdays, the original owner of the site,, points out that the article erroneously claims that the current owner established the famousbirthdays.com site. The archive link requested cannot be added to the article because famousbirthdays.com is blacklisted (and should remain so), but it is the earliest archived version of that site, proving who owned the original copyright. It would be a useful link to cite in order to correct the error in the article.

We cannot whitelist a home page when the domain is blacklisted. However, is it possible to whitelist an archive link of home page without messing up the blacklist behavior? I wanted to ask here before creating a whitelist entry. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The link shown above is to the Internet Archive, a site that saves copies of web pages for historical purposes. It proves that I created the Famous Birthdays website in 1998 -- not 2012 as is currently reported in the Wikipedia article. Ed Morykwas (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please find other ways to promote your site. It has zero value on Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt response. I am NOT trying to promote the site, but simply to correct this deliberate untruth.  It's not fair that I should be erased from Internet history when I created one of the first popular websites. Ed Morykwas (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I misssed Anachronist's earlier comment here. I'm OK with creating a whitelist entry for that archive.org link. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I appreciate your help. Ed Morykwas (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I was concerned that because the domain famousbirthdays.com is already blacklisted, would whitelisting that domain prefixed by an archive.org path mess anything up? I didn't want to add it to the whitelist myself until I was certain.
 * I guess I'm asking in a general sense, would whitelisting an entire blacklisted domain via archive.org allow black-hat spammers to do an end-run around the blacklist? It's unlikely to happen in this case, but I'm wondering what would happen if we start making a habit of adding such entries to the whitelist. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I assumed we were just whitelisting that specific URL. Honesetly I'm not as familiar with the nuances of whitelisting, but I thought that should be possible. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Specific links can be allowed by overruling the blacklisted links through addition to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. That's according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist. Ed Morykwas (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * all rules are interpreted completely, this should not allow any other famousbirthdays links. to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I tested the link just now, and it works perfectly.  I will not abuse it. Ed Morykwas (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

sondeaquiprnet.files.wordpress.com
The site should be whitelisted because it contains many posters / flyers published by the governments of PR announcing their yearly patron saint festivals of many municipalities of Puerto Rico. Specifically some of the articles that would benefit from the addition of the link are: Cayey, Puerto Rico, Ceiba, Puerto Rico, Ciales, Puerto Rico, Guánica, Puerto Rico, Fajardo, Puerto Rico, Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico, Lajas, Puerto Rico, Lares, Puerto Rico, Aguada, Puerto Rico, Carolina, Puerto Rico, and others. Some of the specific links include: * * etc. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC) and other articles would benefit with these: The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * . It's a reasonable request. However, the copyright status of those pictures is uncertain. While things published by the US federal government are typically free to use, that is not true for local governments. And we cannot link to copyrighted things. Unless there is clear information associated with each image that they are in the public domain or released under an appropriate free license, we cannot link to them. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @The Eloquent Peasant there is nothing to do here, the links are not blacklisted. However, please check copyright status of those documents, if they are copyvio you should not link to them.  I will disable the links here just in case for that reason. Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 04:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

linktr.ee/include_mx
This link is for the organization Include Mx, which does not have any “official” website in the traditional sense, but instead only uses other websites like Linktree, Twitter, Instagram, and LinkedIn. The social media sites all have a link to their Linktree page, and their LinkedIn page explicitly calls their Linktree page their “website”. Given that Include Mx operates entirely on the internet, it would seriously improve the article if it had a URL linking to them. Because Linktree is meant to function like a website (and certainly does for Include Mx — operating as the official index for the entire organization), it seems appropriate to allow this URL to be whitelisted. ⇒  Zhing-Za , they/them, 00:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

wavelengthwwu.online


For Sabah Randhawa, this is an interview that provides important information on where he went to college and some other biographical details, and as such I would like to use it as a reference in the article. BhamBoi (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC) (Relisted from archive)
 * for now. That's a student-run newspaper. Professional sources are preferred. Get an assessment from the community at WP:RSN first and then follow up here. I'm hesitant to make a unilateral judgment that it's OK to cite student media without more community discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

wearecafune.xyz


This page is the only official website for pop duo Cafuné, for which a page already exists. I would like to use it in the page’s infobox under the 'website' specifier, however I currently cannot because it is being automatically blocked to its suffix “.xyz”. SaltieChips (talk), 5 August 2023


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

lenta.ru


From what I can see most of the issues with lenta.ru's reliability stem from the Ukraine situation 2014 and on. This is an article about a criminal act in the 1920s that has no bearing on current affairs, so I find the publication's pro-Kremlin stance irrelevant to the reliability in this case. Matches up with other sources on the event. It's useful because while other sources go into these details this is one that reanalyzes it from a modern perspective, which would help in expanding the article.

I'm using it to expand Ivankovo massacre which is an obscure event in Soviet history. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

vixra.org/pdf/1407.0110v1.pdf
The PDF is is the only reference for the equation for the article. The Dark energy page would benifit from this reference. Qhobbes (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: ViXra is a preprint website primarily used by crackpots/cranks. This user has been adding questionable content to Dark energy, a topic which is a magnet for physics cranks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * . The only equation in the article is for the Hubble constant, and that is amply cited. Vixra.org isn't a reliable source; they even practically come right out and say so on their vixra.org/why page. The request contains no valid justification for whitelisting. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

www.kickstarter.com/projects/dlafilms/slo-light-film


I wasn't previously aware that kickstarter links were all blacklisted, and I can't find the justification for sitewide blacklisting (reliability? copyright?), but I don't have a dog in that fight, so I'm only suggesting that this particular campaign url be whitelisted. It is of value to the wiki listing for Neil Davidge's album Slo Light (upon which the kickstarter-funded film was based). An alternative reference was used to cite the campaign's existence (Film pulse), but for a citation describing the status of the kickstarter campaign, there are no alternative references available. Only the updates and comments threads on the kickstarter campaign evince the lack of updates by the film's creators since filming wrapped in 2018. I don't see any copyright or other problems with including this link (in fact, before I updated the Slo Light listing, the kickstarter url was already present, must have been old), but if there's something I'm missing here, I'm all ears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subtleache (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The article Slo Light isn't about the film, and as such it doesn't need expansion on that point. The mention it gives to the film already cites a source that links to the Kickstarter campaign. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

swarajyamag.com/culture/how-catholic-repackaging-of-an-indian-fable-destroyed-its-purpose
A scholarly article by a reasonably notable author about the Tamil archetypal fool, fictional monk Guru Paramartha, an article I've just created. The webpage in question speaks of things past and has nothing to do with Swarajya (magazine)'s political bias. - Altenmann >talk 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * . The site isn't blacklisted due to political bias, but because it is an unreliable source that has been repeatedly spammed on Wikipedia. I am not seeing where you find that the author is "reasonably notable"; as far as I can tell he co-authored one marginally notable book. I am unable to read more than the first couple of paragraphs so I cannot judge how scholarly the article may be.
 * Perhaps if you started a discussion on WP:RSN about the reliability of this source (you don't need to link it, just paste the path as done above), then the community could assess its reliability. We can reconsider whitelisting it once that is done. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

www.roblox.com/games/5938036553/FRONTLINES


Link to the game's Roblox page would be useful for Frontlines (Roblox) per WP:ELOFFICIAL. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * . I disagree that it would be useful. People who don't play Roblox would not find useful information there beyond what the Wikipedia article already says. People who do play Roblox can find it by typing "frontlines" in the search box.
 * Additionally, WP:ELOFFICIAL does not require such links to exist, it merely describes circumstances in which such links may be included.
 * And finally, the link fails ELOFFICIAL criterion #2: there is nothing at that link to suggest any of the reasons described in the article why the game is notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)