MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2021/02

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

timecube.com archive[edit]

Back in 2015, the site for Time Cube was added to the blacklist because the domain expired and was redirecting to spam. Today, I tried linking to an archived version (web.archive.org/web/20150506055228/http://www.timecube.com/index.html) on the site's article but it was blocked. Please consider whitelisting the archive, as an article that discusses a website but doesn't link to a viewable version of the website has less utility. Opencooper (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Opencooper: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Opencooper (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VYMaps page for a Backwards copy tag at Talk:Mastermind School[edit]

Hello. I removed a copy and paste tag at Mastermind School as the source VYMaps copied text at Mastermind School. In order for me to put a backwards copy tag at Talk:Mastermind School, I request that this specific link from VYMaps be whitelisted for the Talk page of Mastermind School only. I currently can't add it as the entire website is blacklisted. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, though maybe this blacklisting was slight overkill. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asianbeat and ClariS[edit]

I'm not sure if this is just a remnant of spam that happened a decade ago, but I request that the two URLs given be whitelisted. They're used as citations for ClariS and Irony (ClariS song), but hidden thanks to WebCite's short URL function and the use of |url-status=unfit in the citation templates, both of which I believe are used against wiki guidelines. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 02:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brainulator9: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. The spam was rather broad and aggressive (I believe it is on meta's blacklist seen the cross-wiki aspect). (I am not sure what you mean with 'both of which I believe are used against wiki guidelines'). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The London Economic[edit]

Hi. Just enquiring about the url www.thelondoneconomic.com as I've been trying to cite it on Lee Jasper.

I've looked at their site and it seems generally legitimate. However when I go to use a link it says it is blacklisted. I've looked on mediawiki and here and cannot seem to find the url blacklisted anywhere, and there seem to be no reports about it. Indeed the website itself has its own page at The London Economic so I'm not sure what the issue is.

Is someone with more experience with these issues able to clarify why I'm prohibited from using their links, and if not, could it be whitelisted? Much appreciated. Llemiles (talk)

@Llemiles: no Declined, this says it all. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article on a practical approach to prevent insertion performance loss when using a UUID as a primary key in a database[edit]

I wanted to include a link to the page explaining the practical approach in the page on wikipedia about the UUIDS Universally_unique_identifier (section Universally_unique_identifier#As_database_keys). The most recent blacklist for percona.com is about recurring edits. I certainly won't try this twice, I've spent more than enough time already :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwillem (talk • contribs)

@Jwillem: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Critical review of fictional character[edit]

Hey, I wanted to include this article as a reception in the Kaworu Nagisa article. Other opinions from sites I don't think are very reputable like Comic Book Resources are there. It seems the block was made on account of the platform hosting he site, but there are quite a a few articles using it in the same way already. Can I have it unlocked? FelipeFritschF (talk)

@FelipeFritschF: the nature of the hosting site (hubpages) pretty much brings this into the not reliable area (shaky or non-existent fact checking, publishing to make money), and the articles that link it probably 'still' link it (as in - it has not been cleaned out). The remaining items still may need to be cleaned out. @Graywalls:, do you have any comments/assessment here? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're not reliable for same reason as Hubpages article. Contents are created by independent authors (thus, WP:UGC )) and the "editorial decisions" used by Hubpages revolve around traffic brought, presentation and subjective opinions of mods, thus they don't pass WP:RS and such sources are prone to being inserted by those promoting the contents of their own monetized articles. Look at the author's credential in this case "Mamerto Adan Just a bored engineer trying to express himself! I also loved novel writing and yes, as the profile picture shows, I love gunpla.". No definitely doesn't pass WP:RS standards to qualify as expert authored WP:SPS. Such opinion pieces of some random person shouldn't be cited into Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FelipeFritschF: no Declined, per user:Graywalls. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary Duplicate Home Page of and Organisation Mentioned in the Wiki[edit]

The link to be White Listed hosts a duplicate of a home page of a site that often has issues showing a pop-up by its provider over the contents of the page.

Further argumentation: Without the link contacting the featured organisation can become impossible. It would deprive the Wiki entry of context. It also would put Wikipedia.org in a position that could make the seed-exchange organisation covered in the Wiki look as if withered while it is an active entity struggling at times with government interferences. The duplicate is made by a registered Wikipedia user and sponsor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarpal (talk • contribs) 13:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined, please link to the correct page of http://www.kokopelli-seeds.com instead. We don't link to copyright violations. Stifle (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

city-data.com[edit]

(malformed unsigned old section, not sure who added this)

This link http:// www. city-data. com I don't understand why City Data is blacklisted. It has no controversies and is just a city website. I am trying to cite this site for a wikipedia article thats currently a stub. please unblock it ----

no Declined, see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2019#Advameg_sites_(city-data.com,_filmreference.com,_etc.). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AcademicJournals.org[edit]

Will somebody take a look at my request? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=998643809 Carystus (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying request from archive:

From the site academicjournals.org: 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 would like to use the link Link requested to be whitelisted: academicjournals.org/article/article1380125484_Ingale%20and%20Hivrale.pdf as a reference for the natural occurrence of several substance. Academicjournals.org has articles on various topics. My guess is that it is not this kind of topic that got the whole site blacklisted - and should the whole site be blacklisted? Leave a note on my talk page. Carystus (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Carystus: no Declined. Predatory publishing, you'll have to find something more reliable and reputable than that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Could that perception of academicjournals.org not apply to the individual journal or be archaic? The article is published in African Journal of Plant Science, a journal which has a peer review policy: https://academicjournals(.)org/journal/AJPS/about/peer-review. I did a short search and found that the article is cited by other articles unrelated to the Academic Journals platform, e.g. https://www.scielo.br/pdf/aabc/v90n3/0001-3765-aabc-201820170809.pdf. These findings does not fit the profile of predatory publishing, and as a consequence the predatory publishing should not apply, if we are not to err on the side of 'guilty until proven otherwise'. Academic Journals is a platform, not a journal; it seems misguided to disqualify all journals on that platform by assuming predatory publishing without being specific. It could be that the Academic Journals platform got categorized as predatory publishing based on an individual journal, publishing e.g. about African Politics. My point is that there are all sorts of journals under the umbrella of Academic Journals. For example, I am barred from citing from the article "Stability and elastic anisotropy of diamond related C8-yBy materials" published in International Journal of Physical Sciences. Wikipedia policies such predatory publishing should be meaningful, justified, and applied with caution if Wikipedia should continue to be recognized as a balanced encyclopedia. Predatory Publishing should not be used as a 'catch-all' for a given platform, or applied by people without due consideration to the case in question. As for the kind suggestion that I will have to find 'something more reliable and reputable', sometimes that is possible to find a reference elsewhere to make a point, sometimes - if it is a new finding - it is not. I was barred from publishing this reply because it contained references to the site in question, hence the (.) So maybe you can point me to the relevant place on Wikipedia where the case of a blanket ban on e.g. academicjournals(.)org may be reconsidered? Carystus (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Carystus, I guess that this is not the right place to discuss that, what you are now discussing is something for WP:RSN, but I am very weary after reading academicjournals.org/about_us. This was added to the blacklist because it was on Beall's list and considered predatory publishing and hence I do not think it is right that we just whitelist without proper vetting of the material through an RSN or specialist discussion.
The way forward is likely to discuss these requests on WP:RSN for specific links, and if they consider a particular piece reliable these can be whitelisted. If that result on RSN is more often positive than negative, we could in the end consider to remove it. Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AcademicJournals.com is one of the worst predatory publishers out there. This is not a reliable journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: I'll suppose, when you wrote weary, you meant to write wary. But /about_us tells of how the publishers offered an extensive rebuttal which was acknowledged by Beall but not acted upon, likely for reasons detailed in the WP article about Predatory publishing, which state that Beall retracted from actively maintaining the list, and thus defending his position. The list hasn't been maintained for years! The underpinning accusation in the concept of predatory publishing is that the journal do not check articles for quality. This would be reflected in the number of citations by articles in other journals, so if the article gets cited, that is indicative of quality, and this should be taken into consideration in each case as an article is considered for whitelisting. It seems to me that people who do not use articles for a real-world purpose and/or are not in academic circle commit the elementary error of making little or no distinction between articles, journals, and publishers. In this case, every article in every journal under that publisher is banned without due consideration, as a reflex reaction to the mention of the publisher, disregarding that every journal has it's own policy. The lack of reasonability of this approach should be evident. To add insult to injury, the affected journals or publishers can't get their case reviewed by the one man who accuse them, because he refuse to answer! In the face of these complications, I propose that it is the duty of the WP reviewer to do a more detailed evaluation. The onus is on the reviewer to show that this is likely a junk article, or else allow it, and pointing to Beall's List won't do as an argument, for the reasons outlined. Beall's List is not gospel, yet it seems to be treated like that in WP. Yes, I will take it to RSN. In the meantime, WP reviewers should review their approach to this type of request in order to err on the side of not guilty unless proven, at the very least on the journal level, e.g. demonstrate that the journal is lacking a genuine review policy. In that case, the article could still be whitelisted if it is cited by other articles considered reliable.
@Headbomb: I shall ignore that comment, as it offers no argument and confuses AcademicJournals with a journal. Carystus (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no confusion. I'm talking about the publisher AcademicJournals.org. It is a predatory publisher, and all its journals are unreliable, including the one above. That Beall isn't around is irrelevant and immaterial. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Carystus, we tend to err on the side of 'get a confirmation of reliability and suitability at WP:RSN or WP:ELN first'. You'd be surprised how many people ask for whitelisting of articles (or the whole site) on material that has continuously failed reliability, or even are plain copyvio or doxing sites. In this case, the site did not end up on Beall's list by mere chance. I understand that that has tainted a site, and that is why I am careful.
Academicjournals.org got blacklisted after a discussion regarding reliability and predatory publishing concerns. If there is community consensus that this is (now) false (e.g. at RSN), I will happily delist the whole site. The other way is to show that there are many articles on the site that do pass reliability sufficiently, and hence we end up whitelisting articles on this site over and over, resulting in a general consensus to de-list as well. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News Article Mentioning Wikipedia Editors[edit]

The article (Redacted) mentions multiple Wikipedia editors. For one, I would like to add that I was mentioned by them to my user page. So can we get this article whitelisted as it can (and might) come up in the future? Elijahandskip (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad idea since Breitbart routinely tries to dox editors. CUPIDICAE💕 14:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean free all of breitbart. I mean just this article. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that either. I'm saying that I think this is not a valid request. CUPIDICAE💕 14:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: no Declined. No valid use in article space, since this article from Breitbart News (RSP entry) fails WP:BLPRS. A 2019 RfC at Wikipedia talk:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 4 § RfC: Should we use Breitbart News as a source regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? found consensus against linking to Breitbart News's coverage of a Wikipedia-related matter on a non-article page. — Newslinger talk 15:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed link has been redacted, as it was in violation of the Wikipedia:Harassment § Posting of personal information (WP:DOX) policy. — Newslinger talk 17:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fluoride toxicity - site blacklisted[edit]

The following page citation for article Fluoride toxicity was rejected solely on the basis of the blacklisted URL: 'fluoridealert.org'. This particular page includes detailed summaries *and URLs* of 67 studies

<ref name="FAN-Connett-019">{{cite web |last1=Connett |first1=Ellen |title=Fluoride & IQ: 67 Studies |url=http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/ |publisher=Fluoride Action Network |access-date=16 February 2021 |date=3 Sep 2019}} Detailed summaries of all studies</ref>

The page is primarily composed of a list of detailed summaries of 67 *published* papers from 1989 to Nov 2020.

EACH of the 67 summaries is topped with a URL pointing at the paper which was summarized.

I didn't see any reasoning for the blacklisting on MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. (Was that added 15 years ago? Why?) If you agree that *this single page* should be whitelisted, and include the cite above in the returned message, I'll add it. Twang (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twang, it is from the "Fluoride Action Network", that is not a reliable source, it is an action network. You say it has summaries of 67 "published" papers (whatever that is supposed to mean). Then use the information from whichever of the 67 references it uses, if those are in themselves reliable sources.
This was blacklisted after spamming by sockfarms, I am not comfortable to whitelist this without an independent WP:RSN consensus backing this up. Dirk Beetstra T C 06:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.go.kr/board domains[edit]

I read the instruction at the top but was still referred to here instead of the Spam-blacklist. 

\.kr/(?:cloud|software|board)/.+/\d+   # MER-C #

was blocked because of spam edits, but this also included reliable domains. .go.kr is the second level domain for South Korean government websites. For example, I tried to add a citation to www.gangnam.go.kr/board/article/2932/view.do which was blocked because of this domain filter, although it is an official government website. I don't think that the intention of the original block was to exclude government domains, as the spam edits were all using .co.kr domains. I request to whitelist all .go.kr/board URLs. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pieceofmetalwork: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. As user:MER-C already mentioned in the original thread (now here), there was a chance of collateral damage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muzique Magazine for interview[edit]

I'm requesting this be whitelisted for an article I'm currently writing on Ava Cherry, with the present draft hosted at User:Vaticidalprophet/Ava Cherry. It's an interview with the subject that has information that serves to supplement other sources and improve the article overall, and I'm not using it for spam (the subject passes GNG with or without this interview, and my track record on Wikipedia hopefully disputes the idea I'm pushing anything like that), POV-pushing, or any other issue that would jeopardize whitelisting. That said, I'm curious in hearing how this ended up blacklisted in the first place. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should never be whitelisted, it's a paid for spam site that takes money to publish articles and then republishes them as if it's journalism. This has been discussed extensively. CUPIDICAE💕 00:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: no Declined, unreliable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Investing.com[edit]

Normal usage in infobox about the website investing.com, request use of the "about-us" subpage in the infobox. MB 14:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MB: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. Thanks for requesting this. — Newslinger talk 22:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

change.org[edit]

I'm requesting this be whitelisted for the article Music (2021 film) due to the petition being a source about itself. Multiple reliable news sources have been used to verify the notability of the petition for its brief inclusion in the article which adds in to the overall narrative of events, however there is a difficult situation in that the actual signature count cannot be reliably updated to reflect its increases over time. (Excluding a mail online source, which itself is also flagged as unreliable, the most recent news source is a couple of days old, leaving the petition at 65,000 signatures, whereas it is now at 104,000 signatures, a significantly higher quantity). 188.220.86.46 (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined, that number is unvetted and ever changing. If the increase is notable, it will in itself have independent sources and those can be used. Any statements about it amount to OR without backup. The secondary sources show notability (or that it is worth to mention it), no need for the primary source (and especially not because the petition is still open, and hence being a reason for soapboxing). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid response. Might I ask exactly why you'd view it as falling under soapboxing to cite it? From my reading of WP:SOAPBOX that would more pertain to how the petition is presented in the article, and so as long as it was objectively covered from a neutral point of view and not given undue weight, it wouldn't fall under that?
I could well be misreading though, which is why the clarification would be nice.
188.220.86.46 (talk) 14:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not as a reference (though it is a very short step away from that). But whitelisting is not just limited to use the link in that specific reference, and history on petition/funding sites has shown that people do have a large tendency to use links as soapboxing, Wikipedia is a high traffic site and it is always worth trying to gather more votes for your petition/funding. Besides that, there is just hardly any need for a link except when the petition is closed ánd has received an official answer, and even then it is better to use independent sources to state the information (which will always be available if the topic is relevant to a larger public). Dirk Beetstra T C 05:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, cheers for the explanation. It makes sense. 188.220.86.46 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lenta.ru[edit]

The site is blacklisted since I believe since around 2014 or so it has become a pro-Russian government proparanda mouthpiece. However, occasionally, informative articles that are crtical of the government still slip through. I want to use such a specific article as a source in the Kansk affair article for citing a few things mentioned there. Specifically that the parents of the accused boys who admitted their guilt now say that the confessions were coerced. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PDF page[edit]

Wanted to add this because it was a research project done by Asian Military Review alongside IQPC on OPV/Corvettes used in the Asia Pacific region. Looks to be a good reference material. Ominae (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ominae: seems to have been denied in the past as being unreliable, can you comment on that? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that it was denied in the past. Only asking because the data in the PDF file is what I need to cite some articles. Ominae (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ominae, but that does not help if the information on the site is considered unreliable, why would you use an unreliable source as a citation in some articles? Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beetstra: Only because PDF file (from Asian Military Review) is hosted in that URL. I'm aware that it's blacklisted. Not sure if exemption can be made for that URL or not. Ominae (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ominae, yes, an exemption can be made, but we will not do that for referencing unreliable material. Material hosted on iqpc.com was previously often deemed unreliable, so why do you think that this one is different? Dirk Beetstra T C 12:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lmgtfy.com from web.archive.org, not shortened URLs[edit]

Let Me DuckDuckGo That For You is an addon that creates, for an answerer, a shortened URL to a web page that explains to a help vampire how they can type the search into DuckDuckGo themselves to conduct a user-specified DuckDuckGo search, based on Let Me Google That for You.

Citing this would document this entity.

  • web.archive.org/web/20161114231803/ blog.lmgtfy.com/2016/10/the-new-lmgtfy.html
  • web.archive.org/web/20081204052712/ lmgtfy.com

lmgtfy.com currently redirects to lmgtfy.app

for: DuckDuckGo only

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
0mtwb9gd5wx, we are not going to whitelist the root link of lmgtfy.com, that basically negates the blacklist. The other, specific link should be fine though. Can you provide an alternative for the former (see also MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#The_official_homepage_of_the_subject_of_a_page). Dirk Beetstra T C 08:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra:
web.archive.org/web/20090220212325/ lmgtfy.com/index.html
is not the root link
or this: web.archive.org/web/20090221132440 live.lmgtfy.com
.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 10:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
0mtwb9gd5wx, do you only need the archive links? (we could just add web.archive.org/web/20161114231803/blog.lmgtfy.com/2016/10/the-new-lmgtfy.html and web.archive.org/web/20081204052712/lmgtfy.com). Dirk Beetstra T C 10:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beetstra, these web.archive.org links are useful since the current URLs are redirects
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: web.archive.org/web/20090220212325/lmgtfy.com
  • https lmgtfy.app/index.html has a bad certificate
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: web.archive.org/web/20090221132440/live.lmgtfy.com
  • https live.lmgtfy.app/index.html has a bad certificate
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: web.archive.org/web/20161114231803/blog.lmgtfy.com/2016/10/the-new-lmgtfy.html
  • https blog.lmgtfy.com/2016/10/the-new-lmgtfy.html has a good(?) certificate
  • Link requested to be whitelisted: web.archive.org/web/20081204052712/lmgtfy.com
  • https live.lmgtfy.app/ has a good(?) certificate
only need the archive links
P.S. lmgtfy.app may be the new lmgtfy.com , so consider blacklisting, also, there is one for bing, lmbtfy.com
.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@0mtwb9gd5wx: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ipa-reader.xyz[edit]

Used by the User:IagoQnsi/ipareader script, which is used by at least 12 users. Has been listed in Help:IPA#External links and Help:IPA/English#External links for over a year. These posts [1][2][3] also show people find it a useful resource. Nardog (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2021/02&oldid=1071151013"