MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/09

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

Need to cite blacklisted Mylife.com pages in the article about MyLife[edit]

I agree that Mylife.com earned its place on the unreliable source blacklist. However, we need to be able to cite pages on the wretched Mylife.com website in the article about MyLife to show what the site says about itself. In the article's lede, I revised and added some citations to the site's FAQ at www.mylife.com/help. Although that page was already cited about 3 times, when I tried to save my edits, I got the blacklist block error page. As a temporary workaround, I changed the cite web templates to cite book, commented out the url and access-date parameters, and changed 2 other parameters to make the cite book citations display correctly. However, we need to use cite web and link to the FAQ page. We may also need to cite and link to other Mylife.com pages in the article. My edit diff: [1]—Finell 06:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Finell: Could you please post the link here with removal of the 'https://'? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: This is the FAQ page: Link requested to be whitelisted: mylife.com/help. We might also need to link to other pages on the website. Could you whitelist, ONLY for the MyLife article, all of Link requested to be whitelisted: mylife.com website, including all sub-pages? Thank you for your help.—Finell 17:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I should have read the instructions more closely before posting my request. I apologize.—Finell 17:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Finell, all of mylife would be a delisting. I don’t think that will happen. —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra:I only meant to be able to cite other pages of Mylife.com in the MyLife article, not as source in other Wikipedia articles. According to the Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, an otherwise unreliable source may be used as a source of information about the source itself, subject to five enumerated conditions.—Finell 18:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive self-sourcing is a plague. If something is not discussed by an independent third party, it's not significant and should be excluded. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One petition from the Change.org[edit]

Requesting to whitelist this single URL, which will appear on the pages of LGBT-free zone and LGBT rights in Poland regarding the situation of the LGBTQ+ community in Poland. The petition is an appeal of lay faithful to the bishops and was a part of the disccusion on this topic.

Link requested to be whitelisted: change.org/p/lgbt-odezwa-wiernych-%C5%9Bwieckich-do-duchownych-w-sprawie-eskalacji-konfliktu-z-osobami-lgbt/u/24947021

JackGrimm1504 (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jackgrimm1504, we only list petitions when sources which are both independent and reliable have reported about them. Though there are some (extremely rare) exceptions, there is hardly ever reason to link directly to a petition (and especially open petitions). Mentioning petitions needs independent (secondary) reliable sources which removes the need of the primary sourcing, and linking to the primary source, especially when it is an open petition, also allows to use the link for soapboxing (including changing of text to facilitate that). Dirk Beetstra T C 09:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A link at docdroid.net[edit]

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.docdroid.net/file/download/qi3rMyT/eskilstuna-united-grafisk-manual-2015-v3-lowres-1.pdf

This is my source for File:Eskilstuna United DFF logo.svg and if I can't submit the link, the file would be without a source.

docdroid.net: 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

Thanks!Jonteemil (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonteemil, are you serious, you got that from there? A massively copyright violating site instead of from, uhm, I don’t know, the official website? —Dirk Beetstra T C 11:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra Well, half yes, half no. I did get the LINK from the official website, but the logo itself I got from the docdroid page which the link lead to.Jonteemil (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jonteemil, why not take the image from the official page. I can just download it from their main page. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, Because the logo at the official website isn’t vector.Jonteemil (talk) 19:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jonteemil, too bad, but I’ll leave it for an admin to decide. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: What do you think? You who are an admin.Jonteemil (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You can source the file without the protocol (like it is at the top of the section). — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: What section?Jonteemil (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This one. The very first line. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two links to articles at CBR[edit]

While CBRonline.com is blacklisted (IIRC for some spam-like action many years ago), the site contains a number of articles which describe events in the history of computing which are difficult or impossible to find documented in other news portals. Therefore, over the years, I have asked for some specific links to be whitelisted. Now, I've run into two more of such links which I hereby request to be whitelisted:

The first link was already used in the Caldera OpenLinux article as an archived link, and it has been recently removed because it was found to refer to cbronline.com leaving the reference in an undesirable state. Nevertheless, it talks about historically important projects Novell Corsair and Exposé and the Novell DOS 7 product and documents a certain snapshot of "external knowledge" about the projects at this time which I could not find elsewhere. This is historically important.

The second link is used in the FlexOS article as a fragmented text-only link. The article contains interesting infos about Digital Research, GEM and FlexOS, which support statements in our article.

Since there is nothing spammish in these links, I'd like to have them whitelisted. We are not doing our readers a service with providing fragmented or no references instead of proper refs with functioning links so they can check the sources themselves easily. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if there's only one source, then it's not significant. Guy (help!) 07:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia aiming at properly documenting and presenting the knowledge of the world, not some mainstream outlet. There are a lot of things which are encyclopedically relevant and historically important to document, and for which we now can be happy to find at least one surviving source. Corsair and Expose are important pieces in the history of Novell and Caldera, and also of Linux.
We are not discussing the notability of an article, for which we, in general, aim for more than one RS. We are discussing references backing up bits of information in an article, for which we do not need multiple sources in order for things to become relevant. Actually, we are not even discussing the two references given above per se, because per WP:RS they are RS as well (the board for these kind of discussions would be the corresponding article talk pages, anyway). What we are discussing is if we can provide functioning links to an online source of these articles or have to leave the references without those links. Following the fundamental idea of the web, providing links is the norm, if they are available. However, in this particular case, the links belong to a domain, which was blacklisted by us (IIRC because they planted CBROnline links into many Wikipedia articles in some spam-like fashion, although right now I can't remember if it was ever properly determined if they really did it with bad or good intentions). However, the possibly bad behaviour of a site owner does not invalidate individual articles on his site.
What we need to do now is determine if providing the links can be dangerous for our readers in any way (f.e. if they would point to some malware site) or if, by whitelisting them, someone is trying to circumvent the general cbronline blacklisting. Both scenarios can be ruled out here, so I don't see a valid reason for why these two links should not be whitelisted.
We are not doing our readers a service leaving them hunting for those links via Google etc. if we can readily provide the links in the reference. It's not only about convenience, it is also about quality assurance, because by providing the live link, we make it easier for readers to check that the reference supports some information in our article. (And by even providing an archived link, as in one of the references, if a malicious site owner would ever decide to turn his site into some malware site in the future this could not negatively affect our readers.)
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are this: Wrong. Guy (help!) 23:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two links from IQPC[edit]

Requesting to white list two URLs, which contain details about an event that the CEO of Tokigames attended, and I would like to reference these links. The URLs link to the Esports Asia Summit, which was an event that occurred from the 28 - 29th of May, 2019 in Singapore. I understand that iqpc has been heavily spammed in the past, and as a result I wish to whitelist only these links. Thank you for any help. --Zansher (User talk:Zansher)

open.online[edit]

Reasons

This website is an Italian on-line daily newspaper founded on last December by Enrico Mentana, current anchorman of the Italian television channel La7. Here's a brief summary in Italian of the website, made by ANSA, with the link to the website reported as well in the article.

I already made a request for this site months ago.

I request one link that will be used on the 2019 Democratic Party (Italy) leadership election.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Broncoviz (talk • contribs) 09:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a similar discussion on the same website in the Spam-blacklist talk page. Beetstra suggested whitelisting the whole domain 'open.online'. --Ritchie92 (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to revive this thread, since I think it's become clear that the whole website should be whitelisted. See also discussions in the Spam-blacklist talk page and its archive. Thanks. --Ritchie92 (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie92 and Broncoviz: As per discussion both here and on the spam blacklist, this is better whitelisted as the whole domain (it cannot be unlisted, as it is the TLD which is, and should be, blacklisted). plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2019/09&oldid=921769570"