MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2017/08

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

Manning.com[edit]

Specifically, www.manning.com/books/ejb-3-in-action which is a book cited by the Plain old Java object page. Urhixidur (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. There's no requirement for references to be online, particularly for books. Also you can cite Google books if you want: https://books.google.com/books?id=Qo8pmwEACAAJ ~Anachronist (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Transmissions[edit]

I'm trying to figure out why the website Northern Transmissions has been blocked. It seems like a perfectly legitimate music criticism site as best I can tell. Mbroderick271 (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbroderick271: This was spammed by several IPs in 2012, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Oct 1#northerntransmissions. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dirk Beetstra:So does this mean I can use it now or is it still on the bad boys list? Mbroderick271 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbroderick271: You can use this specific link, no other documents on the same site. There has been multiple-IP spamming of this, I am not comfortable with removing such sites before we really see whitescale, general use. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC) (reping: @Mbroderick271: --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

change.org petition re iYogi[edit]

change.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

Article iYogi would benefit from a link to www.change.org/p/ministry-of-labour-and-employment-iyogi-technical-services-pvt-ltd-hasn-t-paid-us-salary-since-april-2016

This is a company which seems to be closing down without paying its employees. There is much information in forums and the like by employees seeking redress, but I haven't found more formal information. The petition I link was started by an employee, and lists a number of issues that are not well-sourced elsewhere. The purpose of the link is to establish the existence of a petition, and to report on claims. The text I have drafted is

An online petition was set up in late 2016 starting "I was working with iYogi Technical Services Pvt Ltd Gurgaon Haryana ... iYogi didn't pay my salary from April 2016", and listing events and problems, essentially that promises are made, no funds are provided, that the company had asked all employees to resign though they had not been paid, that payment into the Provident Fund had not been made since August 2015, and that the company owner has funds, and has set up new companies in other names. The petition, to be delivered to the Ministry of Labour and Employment, reported 343 supporters as of July 2017. It requested payment to workers of three months' back salary, with the remainder 45 days later. [link to petition URL here]

Thanks and best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 10:55, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pol098: did you read /Common requests? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for response. Yes, I had read the section on change.org carefully, which is why I said "The purpose of the link is to establish the existence of a petition, and to report on claims", rather than any of the we don't allows. Perhaps I should rather say that the petition is a source to support that specific claims have been made against the company.
  • we don't allow users to add links to Wikipedia to get people to visit and perhaps sign their petition, whatever it is.
    Clearly not the purpose of the text I have drafted. It's also not my petition; I have no connection whatsoever beyond having contributed to the technical support scam and related articles.
  • We also don't allow links to petition sites to demonstrate how many people have signed the petition
    While I mention the number of responses, it's simply a piece of information not vital to the issues, rather than something I want to demonstrate; I have no objection to not mentioning it.

    The problem with information on this company is that very little is actually happening, so there is no news to report: there are pending lawsuits and so on, but the company simply seems to be vanishing. In addition to this petition, searching finds many complaints by employees of iYogi trying to gain redress; but the petition seems a somewhat better source. Pol098 (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pol098: So this is a primary source, where you have no independent sourcing that this is actually encyclopedic material. I mean, you have no evidence for the point that they did not pay salary, for the made promises, .. except for this petition? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"you have no evidence for the point that they did not pay salary?". (1) I do; it's documented elsewhere in the article, though not in the proposed text. (2) My draft says that an online petition exists making these claims; it does not state them as simple fact. This is one of the many cases where there is ample information, in the form typically of complaints sites where large numbers of employees claim, with name and employee number, about their salaries and pension contributions not being paid, without this having been picked up much by news sites. See for example:
https://www.complaintboard.in/?search=iyogi
https://www.consumercomplaints.in/?search=iyogi
http://www.beindian.org/complaint-against-iyogi/
http://www.consumerredressal.com/complaints/categoryID/18/Provident-Fund
Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pol098: Sorry, I misunderstood that. There are just no independent sources for the existence of the petition. Then the question remains: why does Wikipedia have to report that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean here is, is that I have problems with having a primary source on that, without secondary sources to back it up, on a petition that has , you say, 343 votes. That number is unreliable, it has not been vetted, there could be 250 fake votes in it. Anyone can write a petition on change.org. Why is this petition important (to Wikipedia readers, I understand that it is to the people itself, but that argument is a WP:SOAPBOX violation). I just have been looking a bit, and all I see is the primary source. Nothing else. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Anyone can write a petition on change.org." I suppose that's the critical point; I don't know anything about the site. I'll leave it there, failing other sources. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist articles on Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (CEE)[edit]

The Library of Economics and Liberty (www.econlib.org ) website has been globally blacklisted because of problems in the past. However, these problems do not involve the CEE which is hosted on that site. I request that all articles from the CEE be whitelisted, i.e. all links beginning with address www.econlib.org/library/Enc* should be whitelisted. LK (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lawrencekhoo: I have added some full trees and biographies/title lists to the request - would that all be sufficient (the links requested here are whitelisting the tree, anything can be after the last '/' - htts://econlib.org/library/Enc/articlename will work). This is rather strictly CEE only. Just to confirm, the 2nd edition from 2008 is (for now) definitely the last edition, right? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that is sufficient. As far as I know, there are no plans for a third edition. If this ever changes, I'll make a further request here. Thanks, --LK (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lawrencekhoo: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmax Law[edit]

These links are blocked because airmax.co is blocked. Fairmaxlaw.com itself doesn't directly go against Wikipedia's terms. These links are necessary to the Michael Jaafar wikipedia page that I'm trying to post. One link goes to his biography page on his firm's website, the second to a book he has authored, and the third to an archive of his news appearances. Estefthelemur (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC) estefthelemur Estefthelemur (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone come to a decision about these links? Thank you.

I can't really speak to the need for those links, but this is indeed a false positive. There's a very aggressive regex targeting every possible permutation of "airmax" on the global blacklist; I can probably guess why. Kuru (talk) 22:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three requested links, only the first seems remotely useful, and that only for an "external links" section, not as a reference. Given that Draft:Michael Jaafar currently does not establish that he's notable enough to be the subject of an encyclopedia article, my advice would be to do nothing for now and re-visit the issue when (if) there's a live article. I don't usually deal with the spam whitelist, so I'll leave the decision to people more familiar with it. Huon (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ezinearticles.com/?The-Acer-D2D-Erecovery-101&id=1160163[edit]

ezinearticles.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: ezinearticles.com/?The-Acer-D2D-Erecovery-101&id=1160163

Wish to use this as a reference for Acer entry under Partition type#PID_27h.

  • This is the only article I found that clearly and explicitly links the partition type ID with the product.
  • Since there's no official docs on the matter and the article is well-researched and well-written, it qualifies as a reliable source specifically to confirm a specific use of the partition type code.
  • It mentions 2 more partition types used by the software package, so some other table entries could benefit from it as well.
  • Of all the online copies of this article, this link does seem to be the original one: the earliest by date; the best formatting and attribution; the fullest in content.

Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2017/08&oldid=801702743"