MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2022/05

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

www.verywellhealth.com/what-is-a-convulsion-4144876[edit]

How does this meet WP:MEDRS? Appears to be doctors isn't a qualification - peer reviewed matters. Verywellhealth was discussed and consensus found and anything you find there should be able to be reliably sourced to an actual RS, if one exists. CUPIDICAE💕 14:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See this also. CUPIDICAE💕 14:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus do you believe was found at those link? I already read them and what I got that A) it wasn't going to be removed from the blacklist unless there were whitelist requests to lessen the possibility of spam recurring, and B) that the quality of the articles varied pretty widely. As I understand it, WP:MEDPOP still works for the basics - it's not as far as I've seen so far being used to support any sort of detailed medical conclusions or treatment or the like. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, if there's a legitimate problem with the reliability of this particular source, then someone with greater experience with WP:MEDRS (I don't do much with medical articles) should have a word with Marium (ILAE-WiR) (talk · contribs), because she's expanding the article and using a source which seems to just be parroting this verywell article. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist links below used as citations for QB64 Wiki page edits[edit]

  • Article: QB64
  • {Link summary|qb64forum.alephc.xyz}}
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: qb64forum.alephc.xyz/index.php?topic=4571.0
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: qb64forum.alephc.xyz/index.php?topic=4571.msg139740#msg139740

This site is the official, archived forum of the old QB64 community before it was trashed on qb64.org by a malicious actor. See article at [link=https://lunduke.substack.com/p/the-wild-events-that-nearly-took?s=r]. I need to use two posts as reference to changes that were made to the QB64 project. Since the project's original website was scorched, This is the only way for me to put a citation to statements as facts. I have tried archive.org and because the old forum announcements were both behind a login and ran inside a docker container, they are not available to use. Allowing just these two specific links will allow me to provide citations the changes made to the QB64 page.

I have edited and published the page, listing the citations as being "awaiting whitelisting". Below are the two paragraphs that need those links as citations:

Beginning in January 2022, The QB64 Team announced that they were bringing in a CEO to manage the business end of QB64. Robert Ryan Carter of Carter Enterprises from st. Petersburg, Florida, was selected by the QB64 Team. Development was to remain with the team of developers and its users, while Carter's role was to help QB64 reach a wider market, as well as to protect it from "bad actors." The archived forum post with all replies can be seen: [7]

From the forum announcement by Fellippe Heitor, the administrator of the QB64 Forum and a QB64 Team member, "This move will provide better funding, support, and growth opportunities."[8]

GeorgeMcGinn (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Human Reproduction[edit]

Ten years ago there was an issue with this domain being spammed by probable COI editors. I think it would be useful for readers if we were able to link to this domain from Center for Human Reproduction, Norbert Gleicher, and perhaps other pages. I think it's reasonable to assume that after ten years, the spamming issue will not be a continued problem. Marquardtika (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to specify the links; see instructions above. In any case, this doesn't look like a strong WP:RS candidate. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The link I'm requesting to be whitelisted is Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.centerforhumanreprod.com/ to be used as an external link at Center for Human Reproduction. I think it's odd to have a page about an entity and then not be allowed to have an external link to that entity's own web page. On the page of Norbert Gleicher, it would likewise be appropriate to include an external link to Link requested to be whitelisted: https://www.centerforhumanreprod.com/about/staff/norbert-gleicher-md/. I'm not arguing that these are reliable sources; they aren't, I just think that we should be able to include external links to a person or group's own website the way that we do in every other article. They spammed their own stuff a bunch 10 years ago and now the articles are out of step with other comparable articles and it seems needlessly bureaucratic to continue being unable to include these links. Marquardtika (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist full website - PsyNFT.xyz[edit]

PsyNFT (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Wikipedia is not a promotional platform for your art. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist page on army-technology.com[edit]

Recent attempts has been made on the article NLAW to cite the unsupported information; a lot of it is based on the army-technology source, which was deleted a few years ago for being blacklisted. I made an edit a few months ago, reintroducing the source to fill that hole, but it was soon deleted again. I have not been able to find replacements for all the information that was supported by army-technology. While presumably banned, I see this source around on many weapons-related Wikipedia articles - can someone please confirm if it is even banned (and if it is possible to whitelist it if so)? Imonoz (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Imonoz:  Done, link added. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very good news! Thank you so much. Imonoz (talk) 14:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PsyNFT.xyz, a visionary artist resource[edit]

Unlike the request above, I am NOT associated with this organisation in any way, and genuinely believe it deserves a spot on this platform, considering it does not sell anything through the website, and is working to expand the collective consciousness of humanity through meaningful art.

As an NFT & art enthusiast, I would love to see PsyNFT.xyz approved for Wikipedia. When I try to add the site to any pages, it says it's on the blocked list. I noticed they already requested yesterday and got denied, so I am here to re-request, as an individual unassociated with the organisation.

PsyNFT is one of the most comprehensive curations of visionary artists in the world today, and it would be a shame to hide it for no legitimate reason. Their website does not make any sales or profit, and is not a company, just a collective of artists. For this reason, I ask that you please reconsider your decision of blocking the site, as stated above.

I believe adding this site would improve the content of the Non-fungible_token & Visionary_art & Psychedelic_art Wikipedia pages. The NFT page is relevant to the topic of a curated NFT platform, and the Visionary Art Page only provides a small handful of visionary artist resources, most of which are broken links.

MarianaP123 (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done; this was declined 24 hours ago. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so when would this site be able to be approved in the future? Before it was denied for using the PsyNFT account, which this is not. I am not associated with them in any way, just a fan of their work.
Can I please get a reason why the site is blacklisted in the first place? Just because of the xyz domain? Thank you!
MarianaP123 (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No justification has been given for including this on Wikipedia except for publicity purposes, and because Wikipedia is never to be used for that purpose, there is no reason to whitelist it. Also, the appearance of MarianaP123 less than 24 hours after the initial request was denied, as a new user who "just happened" to find this whitelist page, does not seem credible. Even if true, whitelisting isn't done to appease fans, it's done if the site adds value to Wikipedia somehow. Again,  Not done. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: MarianaP123 has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:PsyNFT. Well spotted. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist links and site[edit]

The Homeless Hub is a "web-based research library and information centre" maintained by the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness (COH). COH was previously called the Canadian Homelessness Research Network (CHRN) which was founded by Stephen Gaetz in 2008, through a 7-year Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) grant. The SSHRC is a highly respected federal granting agency for academic research. Gaetz has been working in this field for decades, was appointed into the Order of Canada, one of Canada's highest honours. The Homeless Hub had been providing invaluable resources on homelessness for researchers, educators, communities and professionals and is Canada's largest national research institute with a focus on homelessness. I have consulted it many times over the years. I have previously requested that it be removed from Wikipedia's blacklist but the request was rejected. My solution since then is to use the content in the resources I find at Homeless Hub, and remove the url in the reference template. This is a terrible solution for this go-to site in Canada for research on homelessness. I am currently updating Affordable housing in Canada, Homelessness in Canada, and related pages such as Canadian Observatory on Homelessness (COH) and I have already had to do this a number of times. I believe the problem with the site began many years ago when an overly enthusiastic student or someone connected to the site, broke Wikipedia protocols? I sincerely hope this can be resolved this time around.Oceanflynn (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: To me, this looks like a candidate for de-listing. You declined a de-listing request 5 years ago at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2017#homelesshub.ca, and it made sense to decline it then, but not so sure about now. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist:, this was very clearly spammed for a long time. And the first one requested is a copy, where it is better to link to the open access original (https://doi.org/10.11575/sppp.v12i0.43279 or its official hosting site), this is not a homelesshub original. Same for the second, which is originally published by Taylor & Francis online (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02673037.2021.1900549), and again is not a homelesshub original. The third on is a homelesshub original (part of www.homelesshub.ca/SystemsResponses). The next one is a book from Inhabit Media Inc., and the last one a homelesshub original again. Guess 3 out of 5 replaceable does not warrant delisting yet. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, this whitelisting request is no Declined for now. @Oceanflynn: most of the links you requested to whitelist are re-publications of content found elsewhere, and it would be best to link to the originals instead. Are the two links that are original to Homeless Hub really needed, or are alternative sources available? ~Anachronist (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist RT article on de-Leninization which kicks the State line[edit]

I'm aware that Russia Today is state owned, and features generally non neutral propaganda. However, it may be reliable on the subject of the current policy of the United Russia party, and it is to that issue that I intend to cite it. Specifically, the proposal Link requested to be whitelisted: rt.com/russia/lenin-monuments-removed-squares-131/ "All monuments of Lenin to be removed from Russian cities" on the article for De-Leninization, and on the article for the LDPR lawmaker Aleksandr Kurdyumov who proposed it and who is quoted in the article, which cites Izvestia (which is in Russian and I can't read it), and states that United Russia party supports the proposal. It appears to be syndicated on Link requested to be whitelisted: eutimes.net/2012/11/all-monuments-of-lenin-to-be-removed-from-russian-cities/ and a few other fringe English media. If the whitelisting of this article is not permitted, then please take the initiative to seek Russian translators to find the story on reliable russian media, where it apparently is published, and help me do the research.

In the event, the removal of monuments to Lenin apparently did not occur, at least not in Russia, and now Putin is promoting the opposite strategy, of restoring fallen monuments in the occupied territories. Notable that Demolition_of_monuments_to_Vladimir_Lenin_in_Ukraine DID occur. Nevertheless, the fact that it was merely proposed in 2012, supported by the ruling party, (even promoted on State sponsored media, no less) is significant, and testifies to internal debate or dissension or a willingness of the media to kick the Putin's line, if not the Party's.

IMHO, we can record this without stating it in wikivoice, but rather attributed, "According to Russia Today such and such", then we can trust our readers to make their own judgement about the source's reliability or lack thereof. If responsible editors agree, I invite them to add the citations directly to these articles after whitelisting. This seems highly newsworthy to me, disappointing that apparently no western MSM investigated this important story. Perhaps that will change. Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have posted here first: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Whitelist_RT_article_on_de-Leninization_which_kicks_the_State_line Jaredscribe (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done because there is nothing to do. @Jaredscribe: Russia Today isn't blacklisted. The consensus in the linked discussion (now archived) leans toward favoring alternative sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist easeus.com[edit]

My request to have a page whitelisted was archived without having received an answer. Can anyone tell me if this site is even blacklisted, or if it is OK for me to use it? I need this reference in Comparison_of_disk_cloning_software and EaseUS_Partition_Master. Chacecola (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done because there is nothing to do. @Chacecola: the site https://www.easus.com is not blacklisted. See, I could put it in this reply. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist Thanks for your reply. But the correct website domain is easeus.com, not easus.com. I tried to reply with its URL here, but it warned me on the blacklist. Chacecola (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chacecola: Woops, I missed that 'e' in there. Yes, you're right. It's an old blacklist entry from 2008. The report that resulted in the blacklist is at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May_2008#easeus.com.
OK, then.  Done, whitelisted https://easeus.com/partition-manager/ . ~Anachronist (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist Thanks for your help. Chacecola (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to whitelist page on breitbart.com[edit]

This is for Anne Marie Waters who at one time was a director of the National Secular Society. After she left she wrote an article attacking the NSC and I simply wanted to add that fact. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2022/05&oldid=1092284326"