MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/07

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

boards.4chan.org/b/[edit]

I am coming here following my misplaced request and a deferral from the blacklist at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#boards.4chan.org/b/.

This website is the subject of the English Wikipedia article at /b/ and consequently, there should be a single link to it in the "external links" section at the bottom of the article.

I just split this article from 4chan, the parent platform of this media channel. Note that 4chan and /b/ have a long history of conflict with English Wikipedia. This link is blacklisted because of vandalism which anyone might have done in the name of /b/.

I recommend against general removal of this link from the blacklist, but would like to request some help in somehow having the Wikipedia article on this topic present the official website. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: see this diff. "we can bypass the blacklist by using Wikidata; probably a bad idea that this works though" – Nice end-run around the bureaucracy here. Kind of makes the local blacklist pointless if you can just pull in all the badsites directly from Wikidata. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: Hmmm... no, that does look good. It works because there will only be one wiki article where "official link" will show the otherwise problematic link, and that wiki article will be the correct one. This seems like the correct solution for this general circumstance. I think this is resolved quite well, right? Thanks Opencooper. If you have doubts, maybe we can just leave this as an open-ended challenge to address. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058 and Bluerasberry: Wikidata isn't actually circumventing the blacklist here, just using http://boards.4channel.org/b/, a page that redirects to the target webpage/ * Pppery * ... ... ... 20:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart article on Wikipedia[edit]

@Britishfinance: In support of the clarification of the protest. plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! Britishfinance (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very disappointed that this article by a banned editor was linked to Wikipedia, over the standard breitbart blacklist. I'm removing it. WormTT(talk) 18:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is not intended to replace his: I was also surprised, but it's a very sensitive topic and Beetstra was on a related strike. I'm very glad to learn that he plans to edit again. —PaleoNeonate – 19:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kochar Infotech Ltd.[edit]

Link to be requested for Whitelisting. This is technology company which is gaining a good place in enahancing Cusotmer experience for Enterpises by providing managed services, SAAS (Software As a Service) and IOT solutions. This should be notable by Wikipedia too. We respect Wikipedia policies to provide reliable resouces on wikipedia articles. That is why i request wikipedia to whitelist the homepage of Kochar Infotech Ltd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotsahni (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is not blacklisted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: openpr.com/news/242395/KocharTech-wins-Aegis-Graham-Bell-Award-for-Innovation.html

JJMC89, i need to give referrance to this external link under referrance section in Kochar Infotech Ltd.. Please help me get this link whitelisted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotsahni (talk • contribs) 07:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done The article is now deleted. In any case, you need independent sources, not press releases. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

mangauk.com[edit]

Hello? —DocWatson42 (talk) 06:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Archive copy of a gofundme.com page[edit]

The Kyoto_Animation_arson_attack page notes the target amount of the fundraiser, but lists the present revised goal ($75k), not the initial one ($50k). I want to cite the mentioned Internet Archive page regarding the initial goal, which once surpassed was replaced by the present one. But the blacklist alert box says I can't cite the page due to the "gofundme.com" string being in it. Listing the goal amount of the fundraiser is a valuable piece of info in showing how much the anime community has raised for the victims, but listing the revised goal falsely diminishes how much the fundraiser has surpassed expectations, therefore I feel the original goal is the preferable piece of information. But without a citation I can see it being inadvertently edited back to the $75k figure. Myfanwy (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Myfanwy: I was here to request the live version be whitelisted actually. I was hoping that the live version (not archived) could be whitelisted as it's notable to our coverage of Kyoto Animation arson attack. My preference is to put it in an external links section, but that'll have to be sorted out on the talk page. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Myfanwy and MJL: I could agree to the first one (if there are no reliable, independent sources that state the initial goal). For the second one (the live version): that would fail our inclusion standards. The page you want to use it on is Kyoto Animation arson attack, which is about the attack. That would typically be a page that does not have an 'own website' (the website of Kyoto Animation is the closest, but even that is indirect for the attack). The gofundme is still open, there is no need for primary sourcing of the ever changing number when there are independent sources, and we are not here to 'help them'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: [Thank you for the ping] I never said I was trying to add it to "help them" or anything. I just think that we should give readers the chance to view it themselves. It's an editorial decision as to whether it should be included that's best left to the article talk page. However, I cannot get the WP:BRD cycle started without the link being whitelisted. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: As I said, it fails our inclusion standards as it is indirect. It is blacklisted to prevent the BR, it is always D as the majority plainly fails inclusion standards. Why not post their bank details as well to avoid that people have to look them up? It is out of scope. (and I know it is not your goal to help them, but it is your goal to help people who may want to help them; inadvertently you are helping them). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: The majority of the WP:RS who report on this event generally post that link. I don't get why we should be the exception especially if, yeah, it helps people help them (or even just to see the latest amount of money raised). I also don't know what you mean by to prevent the BR, it is always D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Because we are writing an encyclopedia, and they are writing newspapers. And again, the subject of the page is the arson attack, not the gofundme campaign, and I do not think that the gofundme campaign is the most important claim to the notability of the subject, by far. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:22, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Those are editorial arguments I'd love to tackle on the talk page. We both agree my intention is not to spam this link anywhere. I just want to start the BRD cycle. Whitelisting this link will not guarantee that it gains acceptance on the article talk page nor will it prevent you from still reverting my edit that adds the link to the article as soon as I make it (I'll even ping you in the edit summary). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Those are not editorial decisions, these links plainly fail our inclusion standards and any local consensus would not overrule that. Regarding the BRD, you do not need to be able to link to the material to discuss it on a talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: So you are both saying that local consensus can't overrule our inclusion standards, but I'm still able to try to gain consensus to include the link on the talk page? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you can try to get that local consensus, but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS applies (so, see WP:EL4). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive bet strategy casino.guru[edit]

I think this site should be whitelisted because it provided me with useful information, that helped me to adjust Roulette article and also Problem gambling article here, on Wikipedia. Specifically, it helps the readers to understand what exactly is Progressive betting strategy and how it might be used, and how important is account closure when it comes to problem with gambling. This site is full of tips and advice on how not to get scammed by casinos. I consider it as one of the top sites focusing on educating people on this topic. Unfortunately, it's blacklisted, because its name contains GURU and in general, any site containing GURU is blacklisted, so "spam list operators" redirected me here. Please, let me know your thoughts.

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: casino.guru/best-roulette-strategies
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: casino.guru/problem-gambling

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marti229 (talk • contribs)

 Not done. There's no evidence that this is a reliable source per Wikipedia's rules (see WP:RS). Guy (Help!) 20:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went through Wikipedia rules regarding website being considerated as reliable source and I could not find any specific reasons to this website not to be accepted as a source. Can you please provide me with some more information or help me find better source to use in other adjustments. From all the sites I follow that are connected to topic of online casinos and responsible gambling, this one is the most suitable to be considered a valid source. Thanks in advance for your response. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by marti229 (talk • contribs)

northerntransmissions interview[edit]

Link requested to be whitelisted: northerntransmissions.com/interview-aquarium-drunkards-justin-gage/

northerntransmissions.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

i am just an intern I do not know how to do this stuff, sorry if the format here is wrong. the blacklisted link is an interview is with the founder of a blog, Aquarium Drunkard, and would be used to replace an outdated link to an interview with him. It's just a simple blog interview, not really sure what rules it might be breaking/ why it would be blacklisted?

The Aquarium Drunkard wiki page would greatly benefit from this whitelisting, as the information on it is being updated, and thus adequate, accurate information about the founder should be in there

Matteomatteod (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

need to cite Breitbart in Breitbart entry[edit]

Hi, all, I need to cite this story on Breitbart News to add depth to a misleading citation from Joel Pollak, the site's editor, in which he says he did not promote a conspiracy theory. As is, the citation aappears to contradict reporting by the New York Times, but the article proposed for whitelisting clarifies the way Breitbart reported on the theory, which could easily be read as promotion.

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearscrewtape (talk • contribs)

OMICS publishing web site[edit]

The Wikipedia page for predatory_conference discusses how much more frequently predatory conferences are being held, and I noticed a citation needed for OMICS_Publishing_Group stating they alone hold 3,000 events a year. However, since they're a predatory publisher, it seems all their URLs are blocked from WIkipedia. In this instance, since its a brag on their part, can we whitelist this 1 link? Johnnytecmo (talk) 21:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/07&oldid=912919723"