MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2016/11

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

SKINS.net[edit]

  • I was wondering if the following link may be unblocked.

I wanted to use this link on the SKINS (sportswear) article. With this link the reader will be redirected to the website of SKINS. Thank you. supremebeing93 (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Supremebeing93: per /Common requests#About, 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 20:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: \bskins\.net\/index\.aspx\b is already whitelisted and used on Skins (sportswear) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Supremebeing93 and JJMC89: In that case, no Declined, please use the about page as indicated. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sdakotabirds.com[edit]

This site should be whitelisted as it is a valuable resource for people looking to help expand Wikipedia's bird database. It is a reliable source, as the information it has that the other sources I have gone to have are the same. Specifically, I am reorganizing this and I need it as a source of information. sdakotabirds.com/species/northern_rough_winged_swallow_info.htm

Thank you for considering this request RileyBugz (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RileyBugz: Trying to find where this was blacklisted, I do see however a 2012 report mentioning 6 years of (adsense) spamming, so I am not inclined to whitelist the whole site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Link requested to be whitelisted: sdakotabirds.com/species/northern_rough_winged_swallow_info.htm
It is indeed that report, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=523284147#6_years_of_Adsense_spamming, that precipitated the blacklisting. I will indeed not do blanket whitelisting or delisting of this site (we are 4 years after a 6 year spamming campaign). I will whitelist the requested link only. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@RileyBugz: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google search link[edit]

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: google.bg/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJncCH1eTPAhVFjywKHdPgBokQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2Ff9a35122-44f4-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1&usg=AFQjCNHAK8IkrIK60FfBWymh5v4gmdRc4Q&sig2=HK3VBrnW_1CEsbWzlo5_Ng

This Google search link refers to Financial Times article http://www.ft.com/content/f9a35122-44f4-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1. But if you go directly there, it requires subscription, from Google you can read it without any problems. I'd like to use it as a reference on Speedflow Communications page. 193.104.107.116 (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Konstantin[reply]

@193.104.107.116: no Declined - that it is prescription only is not a problem, the original link is where the information is. People who want to check can use alternative methods to get there, no need to optimise FT.com's rankings. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb Page for {{copypaste}} Template[edit]

I'm not sure if there's another way to do this, but Paul T.T. East-wester (Filmmaker) contains copyrighted content from this IMDb article. I want to include the URL in the template, but I can't because IMDb is apparently blacklisted. I feel like there's some sort of special format/template for this that I'm not aware of. Is this even a whitelist issue? Thanks. [[User:rasimmonsR. A. Simmons ]]Talk 18:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasimmons:  Not done because IMDB isn't blacklisted. That specific link imdb.com/name/nm2428088/bio is blacklisted, so it would be silly to whitelist that single link here while it is blacklisted. You can always put it in the template without the http. If you want to get that link removed from the blacklist, you'd have to ask over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Amatulic: It has since been deleted, it would seem. I see now why the link was blacklisted—the page had been repeatedly salted and recreated. Thanks for the answer, anyway. Now I know that removing the displayed https certificate provides a workaround for that sort of issue within templates. That's obviously preferable to whitelisting a spam link just to warn editors about it in a template. I'll use that from now on. R. A. Simmons Talk 21:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mixcloud[edit]

It's not a spam site and I'd like to add the official website link to article. -FASTILY 04:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: However, the owners found it necessary to spam it promote it quite heavily when they were starting up, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Oct_1#MIXCLOUD_LTD_Spam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: So the owners are being punished via blacklist, to the detriment of the casual encyclopedia reader. I disagree with this approach. Can you point me to the proper venue to appeal this 'ban'? -FASTILY 08:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: No, the owners are not being punished, we are protecting the encyclopedia against the many socks that were spamming their links in order to gain more interest for their site without being of benefit to Wikipedia. They did that back in 2009, they came back in 2012 (and I note that Mixcloud was written by another SPA in 2013). Regarding delisting:  Defer to Local blacklist (but as I say below, I think that there is no indication that it is of widescale use beyond the title article, so delisting may not be granted). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have been back in 2012 and likely 2013. Seen some of the whitelist request that have been made before, the site is not deemed to be very informative/needed. For the article itself, I either would recommend to whitelist an about-page (per /Common requests), or if much larger use than that is being foreseen, to de-list the whole domain (but, as said, there is no indication for the latter). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, could you please add www.mixcloud.com/about/ to the whitelist for the time being? Thanks, FASTILY 08:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -FASTILY 01:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

single change.org page[edit]

www.change.org/p/the-attorney-general-s-reformation-of-parole-laws-in-australia is a petition by the final victim of Australian serial killers David and Catherine Birnie who escaped them 30 years ago today, to change Australia's parole laws so that she does not have to keep reliving her trauma for a parole board every 3 years. She has taken this seriously enough to reveal her identity 30 years later (withheld at the time because she was a minor). Please allow it to be added to the Wikipedia article en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_and_Catherine_Birnie, especially as it is likely to get a lot of traffic today and tomorrow for the anniversary. Her identity and petition for legislative change are important parts of the story.

Grrrrl (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)grrrrl[reply]

@Grrrrl: We are not writing a WP:SOAPBOX - Wikipedia is not the place to gain extra !votes. The information about the petition needs to be mentioned and referenced with independent, reliable sources. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SCCA Proton Therapy Center[edit]

I am writing a Wiki article on the SCCA Proton Therapy Center and discovered that their website SCCAprotontherapy.com appears to have been blacklisted which I believe to be a misunderstanding. My hope is that the entire site can be approved, though I have specifically requested the two pages that I reference the most in my article, as I have had no luck discovering the original blacklisting request in the archives. The SCCA Proton Therapy Center is a part of the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance in partnership with the University of Washington, Seattle Children's Hospital, and John Hopkins, all of which have active and successful Wikipedia pages that would benefit from the Whitelisting of the SCCAprotontherapy.com website because of their partnerships. The SCCAprotontherapy.com website should have been established in 2013 at the time of the establishment of the SCCA Proton Therapy Center. As a Cancer Treatment Center and Medical Facility, there should be no known association with Spam or questionable material (all of their content is scientifically supported with evidence based practices. This is my first request and I hope I am doing this appropriately - Any help identifying the original Blacklisting request and the identified purpose would be helpful. Thank you in advance Emilyrbolen (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Emily BolenEmilyrbolen (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Emilyrbolen: no Declined, you don't need the links while writing the article as a Wikipedia:Draft, if the article is moved to mainspace we can talk about whitelisting the necessary pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:19, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: I have Saved the page to the mainspace; do I need to resubmit a request or can this follow up be considered a resubmission? I removed all references to SCCAprotontherapy.com as Wikipedia would not let me Save with those citations. The active page link is here Draft:SCCA_Proton_Therapy_Center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyrbolen (talk • contribs)
@Emilyrbolen: I see it is still an unsubmitted draft. Please submit it and wait for someone to have a look at it.
You don't need to resubmit a request, just comment here when there is a positive verdict on the Draft (i.e. when it is moved to article space). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Thank you for your patience while I figure this out! This is my first submission and I am learning a lot! The article now says "Submitted for review" so I assume that it is correctly posted now. Thank you again for helping me in this process. Emilyrbolen (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

single page on skyscrapercity[edit]

This relates to the missing citation in Hokkaido#Geography about the forest grid in eastern Hokkaido. I tried to add [www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1162609 "Odd grid on Hokkaido??"]. SkyscraperCity. Retrieved 15 November 2016. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help) as a reference, but it turns out skyscrapercity.com is on the blacklist. I think this is a reasonable source for the specific points in question — would someone be willing to add it? —Cxw (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

skyscrapercity.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

That is a user-created forum post with some photos. Are you not able to find reliable sources? This material from the Hokkaido Regional Forest Office seems to cover it. Kuru (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ratatype.com[edit]

  • I was wondering if the following link may be unblocked.

We wrote a pages about education site

no Declined. This is not blacklisted here, but on the Global Spam Blacklist. Looking at the logs there, it was part of a coordinated SEO spamming campaign. You'll need to make a request to have it unblocked there, but I'd be surprised if they would help unless there was something more compelling. If you're asking to whitelist a specific instance, you'll need to tell us what that is. Kuru (talk) 15:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ezinearticles.com[edit]

  • Please block the following innocuous site...

This article would be immeasurably useful as a reference on the Piggybacking (security) article to source a specific distinction made on the page. If only this particular link were whitelisted, that would more than suffice. — Chris Tomic (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris Tomic: how would this be more reliable than, say, http://visionmni.blogspot.com/2013/10/exactly-what-is-difference-between.html. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: This substitute article you have proposed is written in very poor prose and much important detail from the original (the article I have put forward), has been omitted. Please just unblock the link, unless of course it would precipitate a security issue. Chris Tomic (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined. I've updated the references on the article with reliable sources; the material at that link seems to have pretty iffy editorial control, best to seek better sources. Kuru (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

cais-soas.com[edit]

This link has a ton of info that would be useful in expanding the page History of Achaemenid Egypt, which is currently a stub. Moira98 (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Declined, this site was blocked for hosting copyright violations as well as for spamming. See [1] for example. Guy (Help!) 00:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links to SermonAudio.com[edit]

SermonAudio.com is blacklisted due to some spam pointed out to me by Dirk Beetstra in [2]. It is unfortunate that somebody at one time felt it necessary and acceptable to spam wikipedia with references to what is generally considered a mainstream online publisher in the evangelical Christian community. If this spamming was done by somebody from Sermon Audio itself, I hope they have been reprimanded, since the blacklist no doubt stops many incoming links to their site.

I would like to request these whitelist links. Many well-respected Christian ministries use Sermon Audio for publishing all their sermons and podcasts, including Alpha and Omega Ministries, John MacArthur's Grace to You, Wretched Radio, and many others. The first link above is the one I actually wanted to publish myself. The other three are links that other people in the past clearly attempted to make but were blocked by the blacklist, but they probably lacked the knowledge or wherewithal to request whitelist exceptions.

In addition, while I understand the blacklist decision on SermonAudio.com as a whole, there are many reliable sources on Sermon Audio that I hope will be allowed under the whitelist in the future.

I apologize if I've done anything wrong in this process, as this is my first time doing it. Thank you for your consideration. Fool4jesus (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fool4jesus: On which pages these 4 links are going to be linked, and how (external links, or references)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: I've just added the information you asked for above. I hope it is sufficient. Fool4jesus (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done. These links do not serve any encyclopaedic purpose on those articles. Instead they serve to advance an agenda. Feel free to cite coverage of these sermons in reliable independent secondary sources if they are considered significant by noted authorities. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2016/11&oldid=1108697854"