Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 60.234.215.101 (talk) at 21:35, 28 December 2007 (→amityisland.net). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spam whitelist Archives (current)→
 
Related pages:
Blacklist (Talk)
Blacklist Archive
Blacklist Log

Shortcuts:
WP:WHITELIST
The associated page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki m:SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (sites to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to block), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation.

Please enter your requests at the bottom of the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

Also in your request, please include the following

  1. The link that you want whitelisted in section title, like === example.com ===
  2. The page that you want to use the link on.
  3. Explain why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|180680381#section_name}}

Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)


pokerplayermagazine.co.uk

Vanessa Rousso's profile page At pokerplayermagazine.co.uk/theplayers/playerinterviews/1408/female_poker_player_vanessa_rousso.html, there's a really great interview that provides a lot of info on Vanessa. I don't know why this would be blacklisted. Also, it was on there before I attempted to edit. I added something else. Kenwoodssaman (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Nov_1#pokerplayermagazine.co.uk--Hu12 (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sister cities International

http://www.sister-cities.org/icrc/directory/usa/MO

How this made it to the black list is beyond me . . . I believe an explanation to have Sister Cities is self-explanatory as jsut about every major city in the world has involvement in sister cities. not to mention jsut about every articlle of a major city has sister cities within it. Without this being whitelisted there is no way to leave a reference from the organization's webpage.Kcuello (talk) 20:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have placed the link here it would seem to not be on the blacklist --Herby talk thyme 10:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Cafe Pellicola - window to fine italian cinema

www.cafepellicola.com Cafe Pellicola is a leading blog dedicated to fine Italian cinema. The blog will serve as a unique resource for film reviews to support Wikipedia's vast articles about the subject. The selected films represent different styles of some of the great directors from the Neorealist film movement to the present. The intent is to introduce less known work such as Il Posto by Ermanno Olmi alongside widely acclaimed achievements by Fellini and Moretti. In this sense, Cafe Pellicola provides a platform for discussing the full range of genres in Italian cinema, and a such provide a rich support to Wikipedia's articles about Italian cinema. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagged arrow (talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 Dec 2007

The record of link placement can be found here. Given link placement by a number of accounts/IPs blacklisting seems valid to me. --Herby talk thyme 13:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter & Cloggy's Niva sites

These are essential reference pages for Niva owners http://www12 . asphost4free . com/baxdesign/NivaMainPage . htm Not sure why it's blacklisted. Tartanperil (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the asphost4free bit that is blacklisted on Meta as a result of some spam dumps in January. I guess one of the main questions is whether the site is a reliable source? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter's Niva site is an important source of information for Niva owners. I'll vouch for it. 19842112 (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC) I support the previous comment. Baxter's site is an excellent and informative reference site for Niva enthusiasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.206.12 (talk) 09:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Cloggy page seriously unimpresive I'm afraid. Combination of "webring" stuff and incompleteness (to be "incomplete" & last updated in 2001 makes it look bad) there does not make it look like a worthwhile page to link to. The Baxter pages look quite a lot better and maybe whitelist those directly? --Herby talk thyme 09:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

z4.invisionfree.com

When I wanted to add {{FAOL}} to Talk:Tank to inform Wikipedians there are seven other language editions which are featured articles. However, when I pressed "Save page" the browser showed up a page containing "The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: z4.invisionfree.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted. I didn't face the problem while tweaking the sequence of interwiki links in Tank. I guess it's because of the spam link contained in Talk:Tank, however it doesn't seem malicious. Hope the link will be whitelisted.--RekishiEJ (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comes under the heading of Links normally to be avoided per External links policy. There is no implication that the site is malicious - merely that there has been excessive link placement in the past. Whitelisting is unlikely I would think, sorry --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

amityisland.net

The site should be linked on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaws_%28ride%29 page. The site is obviously a source for the Wikipedia article but cannot be citied. Still isn't clear why it is classed as spam, the site was only on 3 or 4 relevant articles which help further the article. 60.234.215.101 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given link placement by multiple IPs (see here for the request) this listing seems valid. --Herby talk thyme 13:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying it still should be blacklisted because more than one person has added the link? I don't see the sense in that? That doesn't class it as spam you do realise. 60.234.215.101 (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a link is placed by a number of IPs who ignore or avoid warnings then the only control we have is to blacklist the site. Additionally it is the behaviour - excessive placement of unwanted external links - that determines whether a site is blacklisted, not the content. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional domain:
Typically, we whitelist previously blacklisted domains in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we whitelist pages when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be whitelisted.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
--A. B. (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But if I remove content which has been reproduced from the site to a wikipedia article then my edit will only get undone. You need to cite the site or remove parts of articles. 60.234.215.101 (talk) 21:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lease-hire.co.uk

Hi not sure why it is blacklisted but I was going to add this page lease-hire.co.uk/finance which offeres different pages to explain the different contract types availible for UK vehicle leasing to be added to this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_leasing84.69.203.110 (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is globally blacklisted at Meta by the look of it. I would imagine that there are plenty of other sites where that information could be found? Equally if an established editor made a case of it whitelisting might be a possibility. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approved Requests

Declined Requests

Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)


Netfirms

The majority of entries in the whitelist are for netfirms.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 .

The majority of these links are to low-quality sub-geocities sites that have conspicuous netfirms banners and content that can just as easily be found on non-spammy sites. Why the carte blanche?

chocolateboy (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netfirms is a popular (and, I believe, free) webhost, so although a lot of the sites are spammed, and that's presumably the reason for blacklisting the domain in the first place, it's perfectly possible for many useful sites to be on the domain. I haven't looked to see why the particular sites we have have been white listed - but if you have evidence that any of them have been spammed I expect that would be good cause to take them off the list. General content issues can also be dealt with on each article's talk page. I don't disagree with your characterization of the sites in general but others may and it doesn't stop some from being good. -- SiobhanHansa 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Netfirms.com has both free and paid hosting. Whether a site is using free or paid hosting does not determine the quality, notability, or reliability of the site. Have you read my comments at #www.sbmkpm.com/graph.html? I think a blanket ban against the posting of external links (not citation/reference links) by unregistered users would be a lot better than all these problematic blanket blocks of whole domains. It would save a lot of time, too. We wouldn't have to spend all this time explaining all the fine points of external linking to millions of drive-by unregistered users. Posting external links should be a privilege and skill that comes with being a registered user. Even then we could block new registered users for 1 to 3 months from posting external links. All editors could enforce these rules by checking the "oldest" link in the user contributions history page. It would not only save time, but would stop a lot of ill feeling generated by the vagueness of the guidelines concerning external linking. I am talking strictly about external links in the "external links" or "further reading" sections at the end of articles. --Timeshifter 19:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't paid hosting customers tend to have their own domains? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People upgrade free sites to paid sites when they reach the bandwidth limit of a free site, or if they just want to get rid of the ads. Getting their own domain name is optional. Getting a domain name can mess up links to one's site pages from elsewhere too. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems



END

Discussion

Criteria for Whitelisting

Can we share any thoughts on these please. I don't see anything specific in the way of pointers so I guess we can make our own.

So far my view have been that is should be

  1. An established editor
  2. Going into a "worthwhile" article
  3. That the editor can be interested enough to present some sort of case
  4. That the whitelisting should be aimed as far as possible at solely what is required

It would be good to have the views of others too. --Herby talk thyme 13:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents:
  • Whitelisting should not open the door to a bunch of spam. This would be most likely if the requested whitelisting was a home page as opposed to a deep link
  • Proposed link must meet the Reliable Sources Guideline and be "encyclopedic".
  • Requester sends money to the whitelisting admin.
--A. B. (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! If they send enough, maybe we'll even call off the Pornographic Fire Parrot ;-) --Versageek 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strangely, given recent publicity.... I wondered about putting something on my user page in the form of a "deposit box" :)--Herby talk thyme 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other projects with active whitelists

I was unable to format this so as to fit in the left column where x-wiki links normally go. This, as well as a similar list for other local blacklists (on our blacklist's talk page) may be useful information. --A. B. (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=180680381"