MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2020/04

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

resources.infosecinstitute.com[edit]

is a source supporting details of Offensive Security's Offensive Security Certified Professional certification and training, and being well known, etc. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yae4, the site is primarily aimed at selling stuff, and their resources are hence self serving. Surely it supports the material that they are selling. For other use, there should be better, non-promotional, sources. The use of this site was in previous discussions mainly described as only useful for primary sourcing. Just being ‘a source supporting’ does not cut it for me. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One specific youtu.be link[edit]

relevant wikipedia page:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglewood,_California Hello, new to wikipedia. The requested addition to the whitelist is not a whole website, but one exeption. This link is required for referencing as it denotes that Ian Carter (IDubbbz) and Michael Stevens (Vsauce) live in Inglewood, California. This is unique as both are youtubers, so a native youtube link for referencing would be natural. It's said in one of Ian Carter's videos off handedly. I've used this info to add that they are notable residents of Inglewood.

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: youtu.be/YjBTUs_3pms?t=53

it also goes to the appropriate time in the video where Ian says the information. Thanks. Sorry if I got anything wrong. 6th of April, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VN28 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VN28: no Declined, we do not use shortening services (and especially not the youtu.be one, which are heavily spammed by spambots). Please expand the link to come from 'youtube.com'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specific Page for Whitelisting dailyhunt.in[edit]

The article Hyderabad State cites the website dailyhunt.in: I would like to have the specific page included in the whitelist.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp2593 (talk • contribs)

 Not done. Hi Jp2593, that page is taken from the Deccan Chronicle article "Letters leave a rich legacy of rulers". DailyHunt is on the spam blacklist because it takes articles from other sources, and we suspect that these republications are copyright violations. Please cite the original article from the Deccan Chronicle, instead. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 11:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One specific change.org link[edit]

More or less needed, in my opinion, in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency (TV series), as a primary source about the number of signatures which gets from time to time "updated" in the article by various editors, but without changing the old secondary source/without adding a new source. The use of the petition itself is ok per WP:PRIMARY, and would ensure no unsourced numbers are added. (See my last changes in the article in which I restored the old sourced but outdated numbers.) On the other hand, there are other means how to deal with such edits in the article, so if declined, no big deal; not sure how much work it is. Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiHannibal: no Declined, these are raw numbers, and are meaningless without independent secondary sourcing. If numbers need to be updated one needs a new independent source stating a new number. Everything else can just be reverted. Updating the numbers based on the daily/hourly/microsecond change of the number is nothing else but soapboxing itself. I presume the petition is still open and active, and that is exactly the reason why we don't want to link to these sources? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. If I understand it correctly, the petition itself is notable (more or less, for the sake of the debate) bcs it has secondary sources but the rise in the numbers of signatures is not notable (it has no secondary sources). I can live with that, though I belive once notability of the petition has been established (by the sec. source), there is no reason not to use the petition as a primary source about itself, to provide more up to date info. This is not the same as just adding a sentence to an article, stating that "a petition on.. the topic of the article.., was launched"+ref to change.org. (Which is why change.org was blacklisted, I guess.) WikiHannibal (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WikiHannibal, the reason the petitions are on the blacklist is that indeed it is direct soapboxing (though the sentences tend to be 'vote on the petition to ... [change.org HERE]'). We tend to only whitelist open petitions if the petition is the subject of the article (not, like here, if it is related to the subject of the article - that is true for every petition that one might want to link). Besides being able to use open petitions as primary sourcing after whitelisting, one can then always also again add 'vote on the petition to ... [change.org HERE]'. Dirk Beetstra T C 12:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

uaecashloans.com (without spaces)[edit]

Recently I have tried to add reference to an article named credit score. I used the web template, I then added a URL to the site that hosted the article. The website that hosts the article appears to be blacklisted. The reference to article was relevant. May be before when I tried to add reference, mistakenly I did it wrong. That is why the website got blacklisted. I am new to wiki and that may be the reason for my mistake. I request you to remove it from blacklist and help me to learn to do it correctly. Please consider whitelisting it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoj Kr Das (talk • contribs)

There is absolutely no value in whitelisting this. Find an actual source. Praxidicae (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done This site is blacklisted as it was extensively and deliberately spammed. It is not, in any way, a reliable source and should not be added to any articles. I'm sure you can find other sources since you are here to contribute to the encyclopedia, and not to promote your own financial interests, correct? Kuru (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-Its a humble request to whitelist it. As I am new to Wiki I made mistake unknowingly. Sure will not add any link from this domain to any article. But please request you to whitelist it. Manoj Kr Das (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ps: @Kuru: see this user. Praxidicae (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ps: @Kuru: @Praxidicae: I understood the thing. But it happened due to lack of knowledge of editing an article in Wiki. I assure it wont happen again. Kindly request you to whitelist my domain. Manoj Kr Das (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this account as a sock and promotion-only account. Kuru (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northerntransmissions.com[edit]

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: northerntransmissions.com/interview-with-molly-rankin-from-alvvays/

Utilizing this website as a reference in the article for the song "Archie, Marry Me". Northern Transmissions appears to be an entirely worthwhile source for music reviews/interviews, not unlike The A.V. Club or similar sites. Not sure why it is blacklisted, though perhaps others can shed some light. Thanks. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

www.fin24.com[edit]

fin24.com is regarded as a pretty reliable source about business related South African news so I am supprised to see it black listed. Its black listing is also causing some impairment when adding South Africa related content on Wikipedia. This is why I feel it should be whitelisted as it will benifit all South Africa related articles and South Africa related economic/business articles in particular.--Discott (talk) 08:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG and Praxidicae: Since this is related to the discussion at WP:SBL § "duleweboffice", do you have any comments on this request? — Newslinger talk 08:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Newslinger, the "about us" page redirects to careers24.com, which is not a good sign. Where's the evidence this is considered a reliable source? Guy (help!) 12:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link to 24.com on the left side of the site's footer, which indicates that Fin24 is a subsidiary of Media24. Media24 owns a significant number of the publications in List of newspapers in South Africa. I'm not familiar with South African press, but Fin24 appears to be the South African equivalent to Yahoo! Finance. ​— Newslinger talk 21:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Fin24 to the South African version of Yahoo! Finance is, I feel, a good comparison. News24 in this analogy would be the equivalent of Yahoo News. Only difference is that Naspers, the company that owns Media24 and all of these subsidiaries, started off as a news company and grew into a tech company much later. Indeed its original and still flagship news brand is Die Burger which is a highly regarded Afrikaans language daily newspaper in South Africa. Although one with a politically controversial distant past in the country. Other subsidiaries like careers24 or traveler24 are much less reliable. The quality of Media24 brands varies greatly in this way. WikiProject Africa has put together a list of trusted news sources from different countries which a) might be helpful to people here generally and b) I encourage people to checkout and double check. As African editors are encouraged by community leaders on the continent to refer to it for African based reliable sources.--Discott (talk) 21:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just coming back to this. It was added because like Deccan Chronicle and parts of TOI and several other big name newspapers, they do not differentiate their paid content, user submitted content or press releases from their editorial staff (if they even have any.) They often publish pushed PRs and blatant spam. Praxidicae (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From a spot check, most of the content on Fin24 does not appear to be promotional or user-generated. For example, these articles are linked from the front page:
  • https://www.fin24.com/Opinion/special-feature-inside-zimbabwes-lockdown-20200401
  • https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Africa/zimbabwe-reintroduces-us-dollar-amid-coronavirus-panic-20200326
  • https://www.fin24.com/Companies/Industrial/siza-mzimela-joins-transnet-as-head-of-freight-rail-20200401
  • https://www.fin24.com/Economy/Eskom/wind-power-producers-surprised-by-eskom-force-majeure-20200401
  • https://www.fin24.com/Economy/South-Africa/could-coronavirus-give-sa-another-breather-from-moodys-junk-status-20200326
While many of the other sites listed in WP:SBL § "duleweboffice" are clearly unreliable, I think blacklisting Fin24 in its entirety is a serious mistake. Neither The Times of India (RSP entry) nor the Deccan Chronicle is blacklisted, even though a portion of their content is not suitable for citation. International examples include Forbes (RSP entry) and social networks like Facebook (RSP entry) and Twitter (RSP entry), none of which are blacklisted despite having a large proportion of promotional content. It would be inconsistent to blacklist Fin24, a large media property in South Africa (with an Alexa rank of 62 in South Africa), because a minority of its content is not usable on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 01:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG and Praxidicae: Do you have any objections if I remove \bfin24\.com\b from the list? Considering how prominent News24 (news24.com HTTPS links HTTP links) is, I think this is necessary. — Newslinger talk 00:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
minus Removed from spam blacklist at Special:Diff/951069594. Thanks for your patience, Discott. You should be able to cite Fin24 now. — Newslinger talk 09:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

www.cbronline.com/news/philips_buys_headstart[edit]

To be used as a citation to justify statements that Philips acquired Vendex, thus definitely linking the two companies in ownership. The web citation www.cbronline.com/news/philips_buys_headstart is to be used in the fore mentioned manner on articles: Vroom & Dreesmann, Philips Computers
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeNoel, This is a Catch-22. If this is not covered in other sources then it's WP:UNDUE, asnd if it is, we should use them instead. Guy (help!) 08:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but if I don't add a citation, then all statements that Vendex was a Philips brand, get removed for lack of a citable source. That has already happened once, and I'd like to avoid further deletions for lacking citable sources. You're saying that rather than permitting that one CBR page which appears to be properly written, to look for other sources... but can't we do both, use the link and look for more sources? What's the point of having a Whitelist request Interface for granting exceptions to individual pages, if you won't even say what the problem is with that one CBR link? If the site is still too spammy even for that one link, then just say so; that is a reason.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeNoel, I refer the hon. gentleman to my earlier reply. If it's not covered in other sources then it's WP:UNDUE (our threshold is verifiability, not truth).
Surely this is discussed at least in the primary source, the company's own website? Guy (help!) 10:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've accepted that, but I'm still confused over the purpose of having a Whitelist Interface page for requests at all. "Undue" just seems to contradict the entire purpose of the Interface page. I had expected in reply that if absolutely no other source is available, the CBR link can be used only if accompanied with {{Better source}} template and replaced when one is found. I was waiting for that reply; I will renew the research.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

globalresearch.ca/articles/MUG109A.html[edit]

This is a primary source referenced by a scholar which was cited previously in the article Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira, but the reference was removed. Unfortunately the document is only published on that site, but the document is genuine and relevant to the article. The citation was included to facilitate research by giving readers easy access to the primary source in question. Uglemat (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uglemat, see WP:RSP: even without blacklisting, that site is considered generally unreliable. Guy (help!) 10:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I agree, but I know what I'm doing. I even used archive.org when I referenced it (as you can see from this edit) because I didn't trust the site. I was including the same source document as the scholar (Barrie Collins) was basing himself on in his book. If the site is problematic, then not referencing the source only makes it more difficult for the reader to know that Collins is basing himself on a shady source. Uglemat (talk) 10:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uglemat, then you need a third-party source that identifies him as using a shady source. Or maybe the entire thing is undue and needs to go. Guy (help!) 11:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, The article in questions concerns a highly controversial topic where there are two radically opposing views. What is "shady" or not depends entirely on whom you ask, and ultimately depends on who is "right", which most people think is an open question. The best we can do in such a case is to include both points of view faithfully. The declaration by Jean-Pierre Mugabe is highly relevant and important information, and should definitely be included. I don't think the source is shady; the allegation of Mugabe (that RPF shot down the plane) is in fact what most reputable Rwanda scholars now believe, including André Guichaoua, Filip Reyntjens and Scott Straus. Uglemat (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, I would like to (re)emphasize that I did not really cite Mugabe as a source, I only provided a link to this important source document for convenience, which I have also done for many other documents for the article in question. The actual source is Collins' book. The book is well-regarded, as you can see in this article on the current state of research on Rwanda (https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/en/document/rwanda-state-research). In the discussion which lead this site to be blacklisted, one of the editors wrote "Maybe used only as WP:PRIMARY when its WP:DUE together with secondary WP:RS". That is exactly my judgment. There have been raised no concerns about DUE or RS on the talk page; if you have such concerns, I can address them. Uglemat (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uglemat, so you want a whitelist exception to a spammed and unreliable site for a convenience link to a non-authoritative copy of a primary source where the site has an obvious agenda? I don't see how that's a good idea. I really don't. Guy (help!) 09:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uglemat, since I originally removed the citation in August 2019, I should respond here. From the Assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana and Cyprien Ntaryamira article, the article content in question is reproduced below:

One of the three whistleblowers was Jean-Pierre Mugabe,[1] who issued a declaration on the shootdown in April 2000.[citation needed]

References

  1. ^ Collins, Barrie (2014). Rwanda 1994: The Myth of the Akazu Genocide Conspiracy and its Consequences. Springer. p. 24. ISBN 1137022329.

The Collins book contains more than enough information on page 23 to support the entire text, and I've adjusted the citation in the article to reflect this.

Using globalresearch.ca as a copy of a primary source is not actually needed because Mugabe did not publish the declaration through the Centre for Research on Globalization or globalresearch.ca. Mugabe published it through the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) in April 2000, and globalresearch.ca then republished it in September 2001. I found an April 2000 republication of the same declaration in AllAfrica, a source indexed in the trustworthy Gale General OneFile, and I've cited it into the article. — Newslinger talk 09:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newslinger, I wrongly assumed that ISSA was an old name for CRG. Too bad AllAfrica is not open access, but that's ok. You can close this case now; thanks for solving the problem!! Uglemat (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! — Newslinger talk 10:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three specific MoneySavingExpert articles[edit]

  • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2018/11/owners-of-topcashback-and-quidco-reach-merger-deal/
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2018/11/competition-watchdog-launches-investigation-into-quidco-and-topc/
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2019/03/owners-of-topcashback-and-quidco-abandon-merger-plans/

Would like to add these links as citations to TopCashback, or else to Cashback website if the former page gets merged into the latter as an outcome of this AfD. They seem to provide the most detailed coverage available of the proposed merger, the investigation and the abandonment of the plans, respectively. The pages are in the "news" section of the site, and don't appear to be sponsored (it's unclear who would be sponsoring any of them, since none of the pages is promotional in any way). YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hindupad[edit]

The page Jyotirmayananda Saraswati needs more sources and other biographical information. Hindupad came up as a blacklisted site for some strange reason, so perhaps either the whole domain, or a specific page should be whitelisted for the purpose of clarity within the article: Link requested to be whitelisted: hindupad.com/jyotirmayananda/ 

Eternal Father (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eternal Father, The article needs more reliable sources. Hindupad is blacklisted due to spamming but is also unreliable (e.g. very pro astrology). Guy (help!) 10:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One specific DocDroid.net link[edit]

We cannot link to this as it's a copyright violation Guy (help!) 14:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After working on the Timeline for asexual history, I had to enlist some help on finding any link for the chapter "The Sexually Oppressed" by Myra Johnson for the book "Asexual and Autoerotic Women: Two Invisible Groups" published by Harvey L. and Jean S. Gochros in 1977. After 2 hours of Google search, I came up empty. Nothing. After asking on Twitter, someone "scanned" the chapter I needed with their phone (using an app that does that) and uploaded it to the DocDroid at the above link. Now, I am not asking for the entire site to be unblacklisted, just that link. That's all I am requesting.

There isn't another version out there from the mountain of online sources because I have looked. Though if you all want to give it a shot, feel free. :) If you all find a link I can use for that chapter, pages 96 to 107, I'll be happy to use it. But for right now, this is it. It's all I'm asking. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:58 on April 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

@Neutralhomer: a scan of a book from 1977 uploaded on a website that is blacklisted because .. wait for it .. it is all copyright violations on there? That reference is perfectly fine without the direct link to the material, it is available in many libraries (https://www.worldcat.org/title/sexually-oppressed/oclc/2543043), google (https://books.google.com.sa/books?vid=ISBN0809619156&redir_esc=y&hl=en). As long as the bibliograhic information is as complete as possible (include the ISBN 0809619156) and people can find it in their nearest library. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Did you just link me a list of libraries, which have been ordered closed, due to the pandemic? I mean....really? Did you also say the worlds "people can find it in their nearest library"?
I didn't think it needed saying, but that was the added benefit of actually having a copy of that particular chapter (which your links didn't provide). The benefit of having an actual copy was so that no one would have to actually risk their lives to go to a building that isn't open (and probably won't be for awhile) and look at a book, that they don't (and can't) have to look at, because we have a copy of that chapter right here.
On top of that, I can find no information regarding "Association Press" outside of the YMCA (which I doubt is the same), so I am having trouble believing that the copyright is still in effect for a company I can't even tell even exists. Again, I would need a scan of that part of that book to determine that and I'm not risking my life for that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:09 on April 20, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
@Neutralhomer: no Declined. Material does not have to be online to be used as a reference, yes, I know, it makes it utterly inconvenient that you have to actually go outside (which, I also know, is now also not possible), and take the book in your hands, but that is not a reason to willfully violate copyrights. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and note that copyright is with the writers, and up to 50-100 years after they die. —Dirk Beetstra T C 04:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have started an AN Discussion into Beetstra here into his responses above. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:13 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
  • no Declined as a violation of the copyright policy, section WP:LINKVIO. Link removed URL redacted. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (I've mixed up "(hyper)link" and "URL" there. I think we should keep it removed from the request, in the spirit of the policy, to prevent it from being copied and preserved in the archives of this talk page.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2020/04&oldid=958545123"