MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/03

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

bestchange.com[edit]


  • Link requested to be whitelisted: bestchange.com/

I applied for the removal of bestchange.com from the global blacklist on this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#Proposed_removals

User:billinghurst referred me to ask for whitelisting here. He said, bestchange.com was blacklisted because It was abused.

Actually, the info received from the bestchange.com company says that an unknown and inexperienced person started sharing bestchange.com affiliate link with 'referer' parameter all over Wikipedia hoping to get more funds from the company's affiliate programme. He or she hoped to get more traffic from the referred users. This resulted in bestchange.com getting blacklisted. The company has no hands in the spamming process. Uptill now, they don't know exactly who used the site on English Wikipedia.

Reason

I apply for whitelisting as directed by user:billinghurst. I think the link should be able to be used at English Wikipedia and override the global blacklisting.

Bestchange.com is a specialized online e-currency exchange service that monitors rates for dozens of popular conversion pairs in near real-time and offers one-click access to lists of reliable e-currency exchangers capable of helping users complete their transaction quickly and efficiently.

Please consider whitelisting.

Thanks Belmanga101 (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. You present no credible rationale for whitelisting, and you are asking us to whitelist the entire site. Guy (Help!) 21:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ticketmaster.com[edit]

A link to the website is valid in the infobox of Ticketmaster where it is already included as plain text in the infobox website parameter. Can this be accommodated? MB 15:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: 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 07:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: ticketmaster.com/about/about-us.html MB 13:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MB: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

zenodo.org[edit]

zenodo.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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: zenodo.org/record/2565052/files/Response%20from%20EC%20antitrust.pdf

I'd like to suggest a change to the Elsevier page, citing this response from the European Commission, which can be found on zenodo. Is this possible? Ryoba (talk) 15:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-authoritative source. Where is the original? Guy (Help!) 08:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews)[edit]

In WP:RSN § RfC: The Points Guy, some editors have raised concerns that the blacklisting of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com, proposed by me in November 2018) may be excluding usable content.

I'm requesting the whitelisting of the "News" (thepointsguy.com/news) and "Reviews" (thepointsguy.com/reviews) sections of The Points Guy, which are the only sections of the site that contain usable content. — Newslinger talk 23:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if they are the "only" sections of the site that contain usable content, but I don't see anything else on the site at the moment that I foresee to be reasonably appropriate as a reference. Regardless, these two sections should definitely be whitelisted. feminist (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist and Newslinger: I see many reservations, and many options 3 and 4 in that RfC. I am willing to whitelist these, but prefer to have the RfC run its full time. As there is talk about possible replacements and not being fully independent we may still end up at a case where we want to individually evaluate these instead of blanket. For me:  On hold until end of RfC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that the whitelisting request was made by the same user who previously requested the blacklisting. feminist (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist: .. and I honoured the request for blacklisting (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2018#Sponsored_consumer_finance_blogs). It is just that I do not read in the current RfC a strong feeling of 'this is good material that we should use everywhere', it is more 'it may be of use here and there, though sometimes replaceable, sometimes native advertising / not independent enough'. If an other admin wants to ignore my opinion on the status of the RfC and whitelist regardless then that is a possible choice, or we sit out the RfC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

specific gofundme campaign for citation purposes[edit]

gofundme.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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 my article draft (User:Fourthords/Rescue of the Sea Nymph) I'm trying to cite an unsuccessful (0.1%) GoFundMe campaign: my other reliable source(s) talk about the creation of the campaign and its rate of success at the time of publishing, but none discuss its current state, so I presumed to use the primary source. The specific link that's in my citation is as follows:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.gofundme.com/truth-in-media.

Today it's my draft, though I plan to move it to rescue of Sea Nymph in the near future. — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SkyscraperCity.com[edit]

Please release the official website, for inclusion in SkyscraperCity, in "External links" section. TheWikiGuardian (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWikiGuardian: please provide a /about page as per /Common requests. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "About" page xl.skyscrapercity.com/?page=about was whitelisted in 2017 (per [1]). But apparently the link was never included in the article - Done now (with a bit of pipe trickery for aesthetics). GermanJoe (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

expres.online[edit]

Reasons

I tried to add a link https://expres.online/archive/main/2017/02/08/227083-desyatka-ty-chlenkor-akademiyi-nauk to the article Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization), but it is blocked by spam filter. --Wanderer777 (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody see what is wrong with the ref? I can not find any relevant regexp in the list.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter: I need to poke COIBot (or it has to save a report on it) .. I don't see it either. There are some pretty complex rules on meta where this might be an accidental false positive off, but there are also a good handful of .online domains blacklisted (so it may also be intentional). I'll have a look in a good hour.
Regex requested to be whitelisted: expres.online/archive/main/2017/02/08/227083-desyatka-ty-chlenkor-akademiyi-nauk
(to help you further in first instance). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wanderer777: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks a lot.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter and Wanderer777: I asked coibot, who tells me that it is .*\.(ga|cf|ml|gq|online|site)\/.*?\d{4,5}[-\/]\d{1,2}[-\/]\d{1,2}.*. That rule was added in response to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Isla Riordan by User:MER-C (hereby pinged). It looks like this site is collateral damage to that one, but I'd prefer MER-C to make that call. If so, we can whitelist the whole site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think the whole site is better. --Wanderer777 (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jaw-dropping liberal bias - breitbart.com[edit]

The community chooses and a quick search would have shown you this. WP:BREITBART. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This should not be a surprise. WP:V is policy, and a site with a reputation for making things up and disguising them as news has no place here. Bradv🍁 16:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi2: note that plenty of sources on the left are also banned and deprecated (e.g. Occupy Democrats). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, call me a fuckhead. While you're at it, does "Wikipedia Editors Paid to Protect Political, Tech, and Media Figures" on Breitbart get banned too? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the actual discussion and sanctions? It will answer your question. Praxidicae (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This section, "Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)", is not the section you're looking for. If you want to overturn the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248 § RfC: Breitbart, you'll need to do so with another RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 11:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi2: although not technically a whitelist request: no Declined. If there are specific links that you feel pass the bar of our sourcing requirements you can ask for them to be whitelisted. For overturning the blacklisting, you'll need full community consensus (i.e. an RfC in favour of de-listing). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rebelmouse.com[edit]

RebelMouse is a now very popular enterprise CMS platform. We used to allow users to create sites and publish content for free but spammers abused this. We have removed all offending content and also shut down that ability. Please consider unlisting us from the spam blockers are an honest, genuine company. AndreaBreanna (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC) wiki/User:AndreaBreanna[reply]

@AndreaBreanna:  Defer to Local blacklist (but note that sites are hardly ever removed on requests by site owners). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdwallet.com[edit]

nerdwallet.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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: nerdwallet.com/card-details/card-name/Discover-It-18-Month-Balance-Transfer

It is of interest to the outsource/offshore Wiki content that the back of some envelopes, of which millions are mailed each month, contain "100% U.S.-Based Customer Service" and the best citation I've found (including matters of formatting/presentation) is

www.nerdwallet.com/card-details/card-name/Discover-It-18-Month-Balance-Transfer
TITLE=Dis... (so as not to get into WP:ADVERT territory)

I arrived here (indirectly) via Wiki's Help_desk

to which I supplied
Dr. Google found 3 Wall Street Journal citations for Nerdwallet (2011, 2015, 2016). Is there something that happened since 2016 which is the basis of the blacklisting, and if so, is it still current? ~~~~

If it's not too much trouble (beyond whitelisting the above citation), can you give me a summary of why/when Nerdwallet.com was blacklisted? Pi314m (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pi314m, this is a native advertising company (and that was the reason that a whole bunch of them were blacklisted), that basically reiterates what the company is presenting to them. Do you want to use this on a page about this credit card (then a primary source may be better ..), on any other page I doubt that this is even close to a reliabel source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

removal of outdated uofa about page[edit]

  • Regex requested to be whitelisted: \buofa\.edu/aboutUs\.asp\?sec=aboutUs\b

outdated, replaced with new about. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

minus Removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/03&oldid=894495501"