MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/01

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

meettheartist.site[edit]

This is a link to an interview with a composer about whom little is known. Therefore it contains key information and quotations from this composer. AESlater (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding TLD, need to see what and why here to decide proper action. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to above request, the interview with this composer on this site provides a useful quote about the composer's early interest in music that I need to cite on the composer's main Wiki page. I posted this site on the blacklist page, but was advised that it is blacklisted due to being caught by a wider rule. Therefore, individual pages on this site need to be whitelisted individually. - Lpharris (talk) 10:11, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

spine-health.com[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piriformis_syndrome spine-health.com features articles written by doctors that are peer reviewed by a medical advisory board, similar to a medical journal. The information contained on spine-health.com/conditions/lower-back-pain/pulled-back-muscle-and-lower-back-strain supports missing diagnosis information included in the Wikipedia page "Piriformis Syndrome", Lumbar Muscle Strain, which is currently missing a link to more information.

no Declined. IP is registered to the website's publisher, who were the original spammers. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

dns4torpnlfs2ifuz2s2yf3fc7rdmsbhm6rw75euj35pac6ap25zgqad.onion[edit]

dns4torpnlfs2ifuz2s2yf3fc7rdmsbhm6rw75euj35pac6ap25zgqad.onion Tor network(Accessing link help) is the official .onion address used for accessing 1.1.1.1 over Tor[1], similarly to how facebookcorewwwi.onion is used for accessing Facebook over Tor.

Exception needed on:

This site also has an Extended Validation Certificate owned by Cloudflare[1].

--ExE Boss (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Introducing DNS Resolver for Tor". Cloudflare. 5 June 2018. Retrieved 1 October 2018.
@ExE Boss: no Declined, no need to be linkable, the regular official site is there. If the .onion in itself becomes notable then a link on that article is warranted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

artofliving.org[edit]

This is the request to unblock the domain as a need to link in official wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.93.187.58 (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG/help: 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 17:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.artofliving[dot]org/us-en/about-us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.82.140 (talk) 10:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you help unblock https://www.artofliving[dot]org/us-en/partner-organization-iahv. This seems to be only only proper official citation available for partner organizations discussed on the main article about the org. Also, I have a potential COI due to past non-financial volunteer connection with the organization. NewlyHookedToWiki (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

petitions.white house.gov link[edit]

petitions.whitehouse.gov: 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

At the article court-martial of Terry Lakin I'm trying to cite an unsuccessful petition at We the People: my other reliable source(s) talk about the creation of the petition, but none followed up to note that it failed, and so I presumed to use the primary source. The specific link that's in my citation is as follows:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/reinstate-lt-col-terry-lakin-us-army-full-rank-pay-benefits-and-pension-immediately

— fourthords | =Λ= | 20:38, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fourthords: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! [2] — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-hub[edit]

Please add an exception so that sci-hub domains can be linked to from Sci-Hub per WP:ELOFFICIAL. They've been listed there for a long time until today and now can't be replaced due to the blacklisting. There is a recent consensus to include them there. Links to specific pages would be WP:COPYLINK but the domain is not. SmartSE (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. I see no consensus that trumps copyvio considerations, and I don't see anywhere that WMF legal counsel has weighed in. We can whitelist specific pages by request, but not an entire domain. If they have an "about" page that has a unique URL, please propose that instead. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Official_websites_that_violate_copyright is pretty either way even by my reading. Regardless of that though, this request is to be able to techincally link to the domain, not whether we should or should not and those seem like separate issues to me. WMF aren't going to opine unless they are asked to. If it was a problem, they would have already removed it wouldn't they? Are you saying that it's technically impossible to whitelist just sci-hub.tw without letting all links from that domain also work? There are no "about" pages we can link to. SmartSE (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly possible to whitelist just sci-hub.tw without other links from that domain. See the entries for other sci-hub domains like "\bsci-hub\.bz$" Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There IS an about

  • Regex requested to be whitelisted: \bsci-hub\.[\w+]\/about\b

Although it is technically possible, it is also still technically possible to use that to circumvent rules, and sometimes also linking to the mainpage is a problem. That is why a neutral landing page away from the top level is often a better choice. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:16, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't an 'about' page, it redirects to sci-hub.tw#about and lands on the home page.
A blacklist rule like \bsci-hub\.tw[\/?].+\b might work for blocking any URL paths while still allowing the root domain. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. It doesn't matter whether it internally redirects to root (for me it does not anyway, I get anabout page). And linking to the root are for both the reasons I gave why we may not want to link to root in the first place. (my explanation is like this per WP:BEANS, and I know that even experienced editors will dosuch things to avoid having to go through more proper solutions). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I adapted the regex. Just to explain the less beansy part, people have used the underlying IPs tocircumvent the blacklist. People go at great length to circumvent. What Galobtter originally suggested IS the way to link to root domain, but that can be, and has been abused to circumvent. Becuse of the hard blacklist rule now for sci-hub you will see creative ways to go around it, soon. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

specific paper from International Sociology[edit]

  • Piotrus has been requesting ACE2018 candidates to review their paper published on Sci-hub. Forgive me for not being overly familiar with the whitelist protocols, but would it be possible to whitelist a specific link? Link requested to be whitelisted: sci-hub.tw/10.1177/0268580917722906. If there are any copyright violation concerns, Piotrus might be able to speak to them. Mkdw talk 17:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Forgot to ping you as well since you handled the related request above. Mkdw talk 18:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0268580917722906 is sufficient IMHO. I am sorry, I am not in favour of work generation as in whitelisting every convenience link that leads to a maybe not copyright violating paper on SciHub. It may even get to a WP:POINT level at some point. And reading SAGE's Terms of Use ...
It is technically possible, though. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at doi:10.1177/0268580917722906, Piotrus' paper appears to be paywalled. If he has an institutional website where he;'s shared it, fine, but Piotrus doesn't own the copyright so can't release it via Sci-Hub or anywhere else. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is paywalled and in fact the same link that was already initially provided to all the candidates, so if the issue is viewing it, I am not sure how it is a sufficient solution to the problem. I do understand the argument about needlessly creating work generation so won't press it any further. I only asked since I saw it was approved for the primary article about the topic. Mkdw talk 23:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

breitbart.com[edit]

I was trying to convert the links on Breitbart News from HTTP to HTTPS, but the filter stopped me from doing so. FallingGravity 00:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FallingGravity: 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 03:34, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{WLRequestLink|breitbart.com/}} (I'm not sure where or what the "index.htm" is) FallingGravity 05:55, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would whitelist the entire site, which is not going to happen. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FallingGravity: there must be a neutral and informative landing page linked like their 'about' page. Top domain whitelisting is not going to happen. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.breitbart.com/news/, maybe, though it isn't that different from the home page. FallingGravity 01:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. That's a link to the feed of nonsense that got the site blacklisted in the first place. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: Actually, it was blacklisted to prevent it from being used as a "reference for facts", not to stop it from being an external link. Per WP:BREITBART: This does not mean Breitbart News can no longer be used, but it should not be used, ever, as a reference for facts, due to its unreliability. It can still be used as a source when attributing opinion/viewpoint/commentary. Due to persistent abuse, Breitbart News is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist. FallingGravity 07:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In limited circumstances, when there is consensus that it doesn't violate WP:UNDUE, yes, but you're missing the point. Your proposed link is not an About page, as we normally use when whitelisting for articles on blacklisted sites, it's the "news" feed, which is the firehose of crap "facts" that we unambiguously decided it cannot be used to reference. The About page would be fine. Guy (Help!) 08:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FallingGravity: All things aside, the /news/ is hardly a 'neutral landing page'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading WP:ELOFFICIAL, and it doesn't include any of your spurious requirements for including an official link in an article. There's nothing about how an official link should be free from a "firehose of crap" or that it should be a "neutral landing page" (good luck finding one). The only reason listed for not including a link is that the site violates copyright, which doesn't appear to be the case here. FallingGravity 21:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ELOFFICIAL doesn't really address blacklisted sites, these represent a tiny minority of article subjects. You've been told how we deal with that - a neutral landing page, normally About - and you can hardly fail to be aware of the community's view of Breitbart's "news" feed. Up to you, now, to suggest a suitable neutral landing page. Guy (Help!) 01:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editors here probably know me here as rather forthcoming on whitelisting these sites (I whitelisted sci-hub's about page to some editors' dismay). Breitbart was !voted down as a reliable soutce, and heavily abused. I will not whitelist anything that is not neutral here, and I will take down anything again if it gets abused after whitelisting (and I have done thát before as well!). This may be one of those cases where we have to IAR on ELOFFICIAL to protect the encyclopedia (improving by keeping a status quo). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing why we need to protect readers of the Breitbart News article from an HTTPS link to Breitbart News; ELOFFICIAL allows links to websites that are much worse, like on articles for InfoWars and The Daily Stormer. Anyways, the closest thing to your "neutral" About page is probably "https://mediakit.breitbart.com/". FallingGravity 06:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those should be removed/replaced, they hit the blacklist. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. And with your link to WP:CENSOR you have lost all credibility, we have given you a proper alternative. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. So I "lost all credibility" by linking to an official Wikipedia policy? And you have more of this "credibility" when you link to a guidance essay? FallingGravity 19:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All you need to do is identify a suitable neutral landing page and we're good. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flashback: Anyways, the closest thing to your "neutral" About page is probably "https://mediakit.breitbart.com/". FallingGravity 19:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The advertising sales page? Seriously? Guy (Help!) 20:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said it's "the closest thing" that I could find. If you can find a better link, please forward it to me. FallingGravity 20:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to care first. I don't. It doesn't bother me if we don't link to the website of every article subject. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

change.org[edit]

I would like to cite the petition of a section on the reception of Waluigi. but the filter is preventing me from following through with this small section of the article and I know that adding this part can benefit the section as it has received much popularity lately. Skishelpful (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Skishelpful: no Declined. Is still open. Are there independent references talking about the petition? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra:my apologies if I misunderstood what you are asking but if this is not what you meant, please clarify. I found a Vice article mentioning the petition near the end https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/xwmkqd/waluigi-fans-lost-it-because-he-got-left-out-of-the-new-super-smash-bros-vgtrn; the vice article is the only direct reference I found to the petition. I also found an article on www.elecspo.com that mentions it without directly referencing change.org https://www.elecspo.com/games/super-smash-bros/new-smash-bros-ultimate-dlc-characters-10-possibilities Skishelpful (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Skishelpful: So you have a secondary source, which makes the primary source not needed (especially since it is an open petition). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Alright I didn't think of that, thank you. this can probably be closed then. Skishelpful (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

spruethmagers.com[edit]

I would like to cite this Sprüth Magers URL in the Solo Exhibitions section of David Ostrowski, as it is the host gallery of the unsourced exhibition described there. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no reliable independent sources then I would question its significance. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ezinearticles.com[edit]

The article is an example of the confusion surrounding this work's original publication date. I wanted to include it as an example. DJKinsella (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/123674[edit]

The Longdendale Bypass article refers specifically to this relevant UK government petition (and has had a spam link in the reference for years, which I was trying to replace with a link to the official petition page). There is no question of a promotional or campaigning motive for this link, since the petition has expired. I doubt the information cited (e.g. the number of signature received) is available anywhere else. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave.Dunford: no Declined: 'I doubt the information cited' means that there is no reason for Wikipedia to even mention this in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for nothing. The petition is relevant to the article, and the fact that the detail is unlikely to be mentioned anywhere else doesn't make it non-notable in my opinion. I'm disappointed that this apparently arbitrary decision means I can't fix a problem in the article that was highlighted by another user. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave.Dunford: If it is relevant you have independent sources to show that. Anyone can start a petition and gather some votes. And that it was referenced to a spam link for years shows that the only reason that petition was mentioned was for soapbox reasons. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"And that it was referenced to a spam link for years shows that the only reason that petition was mentioned was for soapbox reasons." There's no logic to that statement: the link in the reference was to a site that sold vacuum cleaners – absolutely nothing to do with the subject – but the actual citation is relevant to the article topic as an indication of the degree of support (or lack of it) for the road proposal. I have no axe to grind – I have no strong feelings either way personally about the actual road – I was just trying to replace the spam link with a relevant link, and the actual petition seemed the obvious one to use. Anyway, I've now reorganised the reference so that the blocked URL doesn't appear, but it just seems weird to mention an online petition in an article but not have a link. As I explained above, there is no possibility that the link can be considered as advocacy, as the petition has expired. "If it is relevant you have independent sources to show that." I disagree – the petition is a fairly minor aspect of the article, so it may not have gathered independent mentions in the press, but it is relevant to the subject as an indication of the level of support. Anyway, I give up, I'll stop trying to improve the article, which is only one of thousands on my watchlist. I'm not sure what Wikipedia has gained from my being prevented from fixing a problem for petty procedural reasons, but there we go. Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave.Dunford: The statement before the mention of the petition is also unreferenced. I really wonder whether there were so many people to support this, and sometimes Wikipedia isbetter off with material removed (at least until there are secondary sources that support thestory). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave.Dunford: We block petition sites because the vast majority of links were added by people soliciting signatures to the petitions. In practice, these are primary sources and there is no bar to creation, so we only include mention of petitions when there are reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: I understand (and support) the rationale for blocking active petitions, and the petition site in general, and the guidelines on primary sources, but I was requesting a specific exemption for this example, as in this case the petition was a) explicitly and relevantly mentioned in the article and b) obsolete, so linking to the petition can't really be considered advocacy and seems uncontroversial to me (the information requiring verification was simply that the petition existed, and the level of support it had received; a link to the petition itself seems the obvious reference to confirm this information). I'll accept that it probably wasn't sufficiently significant to warrant a place in the lead (it wasn't me that put it there), but as a local I'm aware that the road scheme is controversial and the petition was evidence of the level of controversy. Anyway, User:Beetstra has now removed the whole paragraph, including the reference, so it's academic. I don't feel strongly enough to revert but I don't feel that the article is improved as a result. Aside: I've established that there are secondary sources so I guess I can always add one of those, but I doubt the final number of signatures will have been reported anywhere except on the petition itself. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dave.Dunford: The whole point of my decline here is that we will not whtelist petitions for use as a sole, single source. If there are sufficient secondary sources used to show that the petition is worth mentioning (this one is rather thin, but ok), then whitelisting as an additional primary source can be considered. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Beetstra says, stick to what the reliable independent secondary sources report. If they don't report the final number then it's not significant. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

petitions.white house.gov link[edit]

petitions.whitehouse.gov: 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

Editors keep claiming that Antifa (United States) is designated as a terrorist organisation due to a story in Politico based on anonymous sources. There was a petition to have it classified as terrorist and the official response is that there is no mechanism for designating domestic organisations (in any case Antifa is a movement, not one organisation) as terrorist, and we need to use the link to the petition to quote it.

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/formally-recognize-antifa-terrorist-organization-0

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Doug Weller talk 13:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tradingeconomic.com[edit]

Please consider white-listing this source. It was black-listed 10 years ago, apparently for spamming opposition. This is not my area of expertise, but this site has data which seem on-target but are hard to find elsewhere. Kdammers (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: which specific link on this site do you want to use on which page on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Link requested to be whitelisted: tradingeconomics.com/kazakhstan/wages
Page: Median wage in Kazakhstan
--Kdammers (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gCaptain[edit]

for use as a reference in the OOCL Hong Kong article. The gCaptain page will be used as a reference for how the Hong Kong is the first container ship with a capacity exceeding 21,000 twenty-foot equivalent units TEUs. Thank you! --Chumash11 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Chumash11: a quick Google search gives me about 15 pages that give the same information, some being more precise. What makes gcaptain so special here over any of the other sources (I think I see Lloyd's in one of them, which seems to this n00b in maritime information a typical reliable source for this). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found another source, thank you for pointing that out. --Chumash11 (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

bit.ly/wikipediaday[edit]

a shortcut to search twitter on the string "wikipediaday" - to pick up the the latest #wikipediaday tweets and mentions -Wwwhatsup (talk) 1:02 am, Today (UTC−5)

@Wwwhatsup: no Declined, just use the original, there is really no need, it obscures where you go. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But it is a handy shortcut. :) Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

gofundme.com[edit]

gofundme.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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#gofundme.com Terrorist96 (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Terrorist96: you did not specify which links. And I am still not convinced this is needed, this needs independent sourcing. That secondary sourcing is 'behind' is not an argument, we are not a news server, we don't need to stay so up-to-date (the gofundme becomes relevant the moment it gets reported independantly .. that it is now even more is irrelevant without an independent source - you will be behind a couple of moments after your update when someone donates more). I am also not convinced that we have to link to open gofundme pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done due to lack of reply. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thepointsguy.com[edit]

I am requesting to allow this link so it can be used in Rhapsody (magazine). This is the best source I have found that specifically states that United Airlines has discontinued its inflight magazine for first-class and business-class passengers, Rhapsody (magazine). The only other source I have found which specifically discusses the topic is a column at Inc.com, but that article uses the post from The Points Guy that I want to whitelist as its source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lulu.com[edit]

Lulu Press, Inc., is an online print-on-demand, self-publishing, and distribution platform. By 2014, it produced approximately two million titles. I'm requesting that this website is whitelisted as it contains many valuable sources for your Fivefold_ministry page. As it stands currently, there isn't much detail listed and there are cited third-party sources needed for further explanation on the FiveFold Ministry. This book is one of the best sources that I've found for descriptions related to your Wikipedia page. --FiveFoldMinistry (talk) 18:58, 04 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Declined. This is a self-published source and including it is much more useful for your ministry than for our encyclopaedia. Note: requesting user is now indef-blocked. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall[edit]

gofundme.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: gofundme.com/TheTrumpWall

This is the official website for We the People Will Fund the Wall, to be linked in its External links section. The {{official website}} transcludes from Wikidata but still triggers the blacklist when attempting to save, so could use whitelisting. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

cbronline.com[edit]

I'm requesting the whitelisting of this page as it contains a lot of useful information about the HotBot search engine from 1996. I contributed to the HotBot wiki page and this source can perfectly back up at least part of the info I added. The article itself was published in 1996 and it seems the website (Computer Business Review) in general is simply a technology news site, so I don't see it posing some threat. --Tim42 (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim42: if you read the way the article is written you may understand that it is all information from press releases from the company. This website is (was) regurgitating/aggregating information published by the companies and is therefore a near primary source (it basically says what the company says about itself. Besides that, and that is why it was blacklisted, the company has shown very aggressive spam (I should make a 'long term spamming' report for these, it spans at least 6 years worth of spamming, 4 years after cbronline got blacklisted).
I am willing to make exceptions for specific documents on cbronline (as original websites are sometimes gone and this is then the only (albeit nearly primary) source of information), but are you sure this information is not available elsewhere (including the subject website)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra:, yes you are correct with that statement. This does seem to be a press release, but it's from 1996 and the original company website obviously doesn't exist anymore. I've tried to look for this exact same document on the web, with both Google and Bing, and have been unable to find it. So, I think it definitely should be an exception since it's no longer anywhere else on the internet from the looks of it. --Tim42 (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim42: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

otrcat.com/p/dorothy-kilgallen[edit]

This is a request to unblock three pages, not the whole site. I would like to use them on Dorothy Kilgallen#External links. They not only contain recordings of her, the information about the shows is not available elsewhere, to my knowledge.deisenbe (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

otrcat.com/p/dorothy-kilgallen-diary[edit]

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: otrcat.com/p/dorothy-kilgallen-diary

See previous. deisenbe (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

otrcat.com/p/breakfast-with-dorothy-dick-dorothy-kilgallen-dick-kollmar[edit]

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: otrcat.com/p/breakfast-with-dorothy-dick-dorothy-kilgallen-dick-kollmar

See previous. deisenbe (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deisenbe: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link to a 360° view of the interior of a tram[edit]

Reasons

I request that this specific page, at www.360cities.net/image/innotrans-2012-berlin-bombardier-flexity-classic-tram-krakaw, be placed on the whitelist.

The page contains an interactive 360-degree view of the interior of a Flexity Classic tram manufactured by Bombardier. Having a 360-degree view accessible will add to the interactive quality of the article, Tram types in Adelaide, for which I am currently writing a major upgrade (the amendment that includes this link is not yet uploaded to the Mainspace).

In the amended article, it was intended that the words "A 360 degree interior view" would appear in a collapsed quote box, with no other text other than the hyperlini in question.

I do not believe another article contains this link. SCHolar44 (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SCHolar44: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

archive.org[edit]

Reasons

This page has been referred to at Choudhry Rahmat Ali (which will be on the main page today). But the link to the original page at historypak.com had been removed due to black-listing. But I have located an archived version of it, which is ok. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is it OK? Have the original malware issues been fixed? Is the site provably reliable? Guy (Help!) 17:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The archived version is from 2013, which was apparently before the site went dead and got infested with malware. I could read the archive page fine (it stayed open in the browser for a whole day), whereas the current host page is throwing up various dialogues. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/01&oldid=1056235166"