MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2020/01

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

About page of Veterans Today[edit]

The about page of Veterans Today is needed to identify the site in its own article. — Newslinger talk 22:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. — Newslinger talk 22:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

forbetterscience.com/[edit]

Anyone an idea why this site is banned? The fraud discussed here is not fake or spam. Example given is a recent fraud investigation; How come this website is banned? example given is this talk about a fraud :forbetterscience.com/2019/12/04/catherine-verfaillie-the-zombie-scientist-of-ku-leuven/Garnhami (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garnhami, see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August_2019#BLP_spam_-_self-published_and_dangerous_source. I guess you should justify this source and its use. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, I support a white-listing, as well. The blog posts have been referenced by national media of repute and by acclaimed folks, who specialize in combating research fraud. ∯WBGconverse 12:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see User_talk:JzG#Disagree_with. ∯WBGconverse 12:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Winged Blades of Godric there is no real reason to keep his website on the blacklist. His stories are well funded and often used as a source for journals or even other scientists to highlight problems in science. He actually one of the few who really dares to speak about scientific fraud. He is also a scientist himself so he does know what he is writing about (contrary to often newspapers where journalists with no science background write stories).Garnhami (talk) 16:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's self-published and therefore non-RS. We're just removing one of the most highly cirtes websites discussing quackery because it's arguably self-published in places. This is 100% self-published everywhere. You would need solid consensus to use ia specific link at WP:RSN, case by case. Guy (help!) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Additional information needed. I recommend starting a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard to gauge whether this website is considered reliable. Depending on the result of the discussion, we may then be able to add specific links to the whitelist or remove the site from the blacklist altogether.​​ — Newslinger talk 02:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary: this fails much harder than QuackWatch. Guy (help!) 23:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guy, what do you mean with this? You also feel that QuackWatch is a bad website? Or not correct in terms of info? Or you mean that if QuackWatch is banned, so should forbetterscience? I am not sure whether "it is "self-published", is really an argument here, 90% of the news articles (from newspapers) is self-published (as the content is NOT verified for correctness but rather for errors in writing) and often by people that are not specialists in that area. Or you think that a bunch of journalists are checking every article (or they are always experts in that area)? I know that you can find this on the wiki on self-published; "The contents of magazines and newspapers, including editorials and op-ed pieces in newspapers" is an example of non-self-published sources => well, I am not sure this automatically means self-published should be banned. I also know you are not the one setting the rules of course, but I am not sure it means this website should be on the blacklist just because it is self-published. In my opinion: we should be able to look more to whether the content is reliable or not rather than "self-published" vs not self published, because I know a lot of journals/newspapers out there with a lot more crap published (esp if it is about science) than for better science.Garnhami (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Garnhami, no I think QW is fine, but quackery shills have managed to get a consensus that it's self-published (even though it isn't) and that limits its use, especially in biographies. Every use I found of that site with maybe one exception, was a self-published critique of a living individual. That's not allowed. Guy (help!) 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guy yeah, you are right, the website does focus on people or reseachers. That is also the set-up of the website. On the other hand: the website is right... the website does target those people, but with a reason. It is there to stop scientific fraud and it does a great job as many of the articles do reach the public because newspapers pick them up. I guess you could say one should than refer to the newspapers rather than the website. Although, I do not find that very fair since for the real source, but I see your point.Garnhami (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Garnhami, being right is not sufficient. It is self-published and focuses on people, which is precisely why we can't use it. Guy (help!) 09:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy : than what is a good source if it is about people? If the newspapers use the forbetterscience website for their articles (often copy paste) it is accepatble?Garnhami (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Garnhami, if an independent RS quotes it then we can quote the independent RS, but we should attribute the statement to the source: "Leonid Schneider claimed that $SCIENTIST is taking money from $BOGEYMAN - source, $RELIABLESOURCE saying same." Guy (help!) 19:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News article from CBR online[edit]

I would like to use this news article as a source for IBM PS/2 L40SX, because the original Wall Street Journal article is not public available online.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Streepjescode (talk • contribs)

@Streepjescode: Googling for "IBM HAS TO RECALL 150,000 L40SXs" brought up Infoworld and Computerworld, both of which seem to be viable and even slightly better (less biased) alternatives to verify the information - couldn't these sources be used? Generally speaking, if alternative suitable sources exist it's usually preferred to use these sources instead. GermanJoe (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Streepjescode: no Declined. As usual with cbronline, purely regurgitated material. Cite the original, or infoworld (May 31, 1993, volume 15, issue 22, page 1 and 97), or computerworld (May 31, 1993, vol 22, issue 27, page 16) who also reported this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: @GermanJoe: Done! Thanks for the suggestion. Streepjescode (talk) 15:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

neighborhoodarchive.com[edit]

Link requested to be whitelisted: neighborhoodarchive.com/images/misterogers/een/episodes/0025/snapshot20180214160754.JPG I need to show that Camel Case was used in the show's title. This would go on Mister Rogers' Neighborhood and in Camel Case as an example.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thesword.com[edit]

I would like to use this page to expand Erik Rhodes (pornographic actor), which I am currently working on in my sandbox. The page includes the final interview given by Rhodes prior to his death, and provides important insights and context that should be included in the article. Morgan695 (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan695, what evidence do you have that this is a reliable source? I doubt it is. If you have to drop the standard of source reliability in order to find the details you want, that's usually a sign the subject is not actually notable. Guy (help!) 10:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I discovered interview through a reference in an article by SFist (Gothamist), a reliable source. I would question the reliability of The Sword broadly (they seem to do a lot of clickbait headlines/referral articles), but I believe this specific interview qualifies as reliable per WP:RSCONTEXT as an interview that is reliable in its specific context of providing news and information on the adult film industry; as such, I believe whitelisting this specific link while still blocking the main site is an appropriate remedy. As for the subject material itself, Rhodes has been widely covered by reliable sources (The New York Times, Gawker, Out Magazine) so general notability is not a concern here. Morgan695 (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pornhub.com/insights[edit]

Example link discussed on WP:RS/N: pornhub.com/insights/2018-year-in-review. The problem with this specific page can be bypassed as suggested on WP:RS/N (copied to Talk:Sasha Grey#PH/insights/2018-year-in-review.)
The general problem are all potentially useful Pornhub Insights sub-pages affected by the global PH spam filter: At the moment it is not possible to link the insights anywhere, not on talk pages, not as EL, not as RS. I've informed the relevant WikiProject on WT:P*#Pornhub_Insights as suggested on WP:RS/N. –84.46.52.84 (talk) 05:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • no Declined. Come back when you have consensus at WP:RSN that this is a reliable source. Guy (help!) 23:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As we already didn't agree on RS/N that was some kind of "no consensus that it is an unreliable source, let alone spam", so I'm going to ignore your suggestion to "come back later". The porn project was not interested so far. –84.46.53.107 (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignore away. You have to persuade one of us admins here to make the change, so I leave you to ponder the likely effect of failing to do the necessary spadework to persuade us. Guy (help!) 14:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in case, not only admins know that spam and RS are not really related concepts, and not agreeing on IDONTLIKEIT vs. NOTCENSORED shouldn't be affected by user rights. –84.46.52.205 (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the whitelist. Here we whitelist individual links to blacklisted (spammed) sites where they are provably useful as reliable sources. It is quite routine to defer to RSN for the judgment of what is or is not a usable source. If RSN says it is, then you can come back here and ask for whitelisting. Guy (help!) 11:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

econlib.org[edit]

I would like to request the whitelisting of the link above, to be used as a source in the article about economist Bryan Caplan. One of the "contributions" listed in Caplan's infobox is "Ideological Turing test", for which the current reference is an obscure and clearly inadequate user comment in an online forum. The link I'm offering as a substitute is the primary source where Caplan first introduced the concept and coined the expression. It is also the top Google hit for "ideological Turing test" and, to the limited degree that this idea has been discussed in the scholarly literature, it is the citation usually favored by scholars (e.g. here). Pablo Stafforini (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that initially I misspelled the link (econlog is one of the projects hosted by econlib.org). The link is now updated. I apologize for the confusion. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Paul, I did that Google test, and that is where my problem starts with this all: why is the Ideological Turing test even worth noting in that article? As far as I can quickly see, there is hardly any real independent use of the term (a few blog-like posts outside the primary sphere?). Dirk Beetstra T C 12:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: I came here as an editor who found a citation tagged with a "better source needed" tag and tried to supply such a source. My personal impression is that the concept of an ideological Turing test is sufficiently widespread in some circles to justify a mention in Caplan's infobox, but I haven't done a thorough research on the matter. If you think this would help, I can open a discussion on the article's talk page and seek the opinion of other editors. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Paul, Infoboxes generally are a concentrated form of the key aspects of an article (+identifiers). If the term is in the infobox, I would expect it to be worked out in a bit more in the text. Caplan may have coined the term, https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=JQUBuAYGF0UC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=%22ideological+turing+test%22&source=bl&ots=rhlrMOwYu0&sig=ACfU3U22OcTerd-v6R4pkjYm9g1_Az4mrw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiQje6xyoXnAhWEyIUKHYNGDr84PBDoATAJegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=%22ideological%20turing%20test%22&f=false explains that it basically was what Ghandi was doing already in the 1920-1922 (If I interpret the described event correctly). Dirk Beetstra T C 12:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra Thanks, I've added a task on my Wikipedia to-do list to revise the Caplan article so that it better reflects the infobox in this respect. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir Paul: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. I went through a whole list of google search hits, and here and there there are more reputable places than blogs that mention the term. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:17, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Thank you, I appreciate your taking the time to look at this. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart News[edit]

I want to use the link in Islamic Society of Baltimore, specifically in the Controversies section. It would be useful because I'm trying to show the viewpoints of different news media. I have read why the site is blocked, although I will not use the website for factual information. —  Melofors  TC  16:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also have another website for the same purpose that I would like to use:
—  Melofors  TC  17:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • no Declined. These are extremely contentious claims, and exactly the kind of thing that requires a reliable source, which these are not. Guy (help!) 15:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I can't see why you declined my request. I did agree and will put any text from the two websites in quotations, naming the publisher of the work. —  Melofors  TC  04:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: —  Melofors  TC  06:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Melofors, these are contentious claims, so should be drawn only from reliable sources. Breitbart is not a reliable source (see WP:DEPS). Guy (help!) 23:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thenexthint.com[edit]

thenexthint.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

This news site is approved by Google News. I thing we want this type of site for reference links. but now I saw this site is black listed so now I would like you to please remove this site from blacklist because anybody want this type of site for references. Wikialinaparker (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikialinaparker: no Declined. First: you are in the wrong place for blacklist removal. Second: so what that it is approved by Google News? This was spammed by accounts with a clear conflict of interest. Specific links with a specific goal can be requested for whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

boomerocity.com[edit]

boomerocity.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 don't really understand what this page (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/boomerocity.com) is telling me when it says the site is not on the blacklist, but when I tried adding a boomerocity.com link to an existing reference to fix an error in this diff, it didn't let me. Nor would it accept an archiveurl containing the domain. Is it possible to add these specific links to the whitelist without opening up the entire site?

  1. Giulia Millanta would benefit from allowing: Link requested to be whitelisted: boomerocity.com/moonbeam-parade.html
  2. Little Immaculate White Fox would benefit from allowing: Link requested to be whitelisted: boomerocity.com/little-immaculate-white-fox.html

Thank you, 2pou (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2pou the report is now updated. This was quite extensively spammed in 2010 and then blacklisted. I do not see spam over the last 6 years or so (but also very few attempts at genuine use, e.g. only one attempt over all of 2019). I'm intending to whitelist these two, but I'd like to see a bit more elaboration regarding use of these links. How do these pages benefit from these references. E.g. the quote from moonbeam-parade.html suggests that that in itself is a quote from an earlier remark, and skimming through the article suggests that it is all just a regurgitated and compiled from press releases (the quote e.g. also appears on Giulia Millanta's official website). It begs the question: where did Dave Marsh say that? Dirk Beetstra T C 08:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, thanks for the reply. Apologies for the delayed response; I was out of town. Thank you as well for pointing out that the quote on the Guilia Millanta article is actually not exclusive to the boomerocity piece. I had originally meant that the article can be improved mainly by not having a red error code in the references section, but given that this can also be attributed elsewhere, I no longer feel that it is necessary.
In a similar fashion, the benefit to Little Immaculate White Fox is only marginal. The article was unsourced when I cam across it, and the boomerocity article was the first that I came across to help establish a "Reception" section to the article. I have since found other material to use, so this blurb can be dropped from the "Reception" without any significant loss. However, of the sources I found, this boomerocity piece was the only one I was able to use in order to attribute the song "Rock Child" as an autobiographical piece to that article. -2pou (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breitbart News (2)[edit]

I am requesting this specific article be whitelisted a) since it's purely an interview with the store owner and does not promote any unreliable news and, in particular, b) since it evidences the MAGA Store receiving national attention via Breitbart, which led to the store having to change its name shortly afterwards. To summarize, Breitbart coverage is materially relevant to the store's name change (and thus the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_America_Great_Again#Retail_usage) mostly due to its affects on naming, potentially due to trademark issues it brought up with the Trump campaign, which sources have yet to analyze.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kches16414 (talk • contribs)

no Declined, reliable sources already cover the existence of the store, nothing in the proposed addition supports the original research related to the rename. Kuru (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough regarding the name change, but I don't see the reasoning behind removing the Google Maps archives on the re-name. This is the only digital presence that the store maintains, and although the first Web Archived Google Maps listing could be redundant due to reliable media coverage confirming the name, the most recent Web Archive of Google Maps reliably notes the time period in which the store was re-named in absence of other data. Well, I have reached out to the reporter on the original story to see if they have any interest in digging into why this name change happened, so perhaps it will have a reliable source soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kches16414 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for a reliable source; if there are none, then it may be an indication that this is trivia. Kuru (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2020/01&oldid=943114471"