web.archive.org/web/20080216131304/http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/
I'm trying to add the correct number of total signatures for a list on UK Parliament petitions website. It's a petition from 2007 and the current BBC reference shows a total of 1.7 million signatures. However, as the archived page demonstrates, it increased to 1,811,414. I can't find the final number elsewhere. I read /Common requests but this petition ended more than 12 years ago, so WP:SOAP shouldn't apply. Johndavies837 ( talk) 21:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
change.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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
change.org/p/european-parliament-stop-the-censorship-machinery-save-the-internet
The signpost would like to use this link in the next "News and notes" piece regarding the EU copyright directive. Ping @ Smallbones, the new Editor-in-Chief and the author of the piece.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 04:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Requests to link to petition sites will, in all but exceptional cases, be summarily denied.- hopefully this qualifies as an exceptional case - its not being used in an article, but rather in Wikipedia's own reporting about a current news story. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 04:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
change.org/p/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing/responses/11054
Likewise for the "In focus" piece. again. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 06:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
uofa.edu/aboutus/
For subject official website. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
web.archive.org/web/20180220142344/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2897545.0
web.archive.org/web/20180903204924/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2807542.0
web.archive.org/web/20170317063622/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0
web.archive.org/web/20151017050237/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709185.msg8013827
Hello,
I am in the midst of writing a page about the online gambling website bustabit. All of the official announcements made by the two prior owners (Eric Springer, Ryan Havar) and the current owner (Daniel Evans) have been made on the forum bitcointalk.org, which is a blacklisted site. I understand that bitcointalk.org is a forum and is generally filled with biased and uncited information. However, in this specific scenario, official announcements regarding the website have been made on (and exclusively on) this forum. I am submitting the archive links to the respective bitcointalk announcements so the actual announcements can be preserved, and any comments that are added on later aren't included in the source.
I'd like these links whitelisted since there is very little data online about bustabit and provably fair gambling sites in general, and this is the only reliable source. Although the website itself is not reliable, the people themselves who are making the specific posts I linked to are. Thus, I would like you to consider whitelisting those specific archived links I submitted above so I can proceed with publishing the article. Many thanks!
Goditor ( talk) 14:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
gofundme.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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
Previously requested on 13 March 2019 at 18:34 (UTC), this request was un-acted-upon (neither approved nor denied) prior to archival, so I'm renewing it. At my article draft ( User:Fourthords/Rescue of the Sea Nymph) I'm trying to cite an unsuccessful GoFundMe campaign. My other reliable source(s) talk about the creation of the campaign and its rate of success at the time of publishing, but none discuss its current state, so I need to use the primary source. The specific link that's in my citation is as follows:
www.gofundme.com/truth-in-media
.Today it's my draft, though I plan to move it to rescue of Sea Nymph after this process. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
mangauk.com/homepage
mangauk.com/about-us
I previously tried to get this website link out of the spam backlist, but it was rejected by someone as they said it was spammed by people in the past and I should refer to here for specific details. I only want the home page (main) and the about pages of this site for the Manga Entertainment page as it’s the company’s official site. Luigitehplumber ( talk) 08:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
hubpages.com/education/Futurism-Illuminating-New-Perspectives-in-the-Visual-Arts
One of the more rigorously researched and sourced articles available online covering the painting Street Light (painting) and others. — swpb T • go beyond • bad idea 13:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
change.org/p/danny-habuki-sexual-assault-and-harassment-reform-at-soka-university-of-america
Please release this page in the official website, for inclusion in Soka University of America. While I have another source to corroborate my writing, I would like to cite the number of people who signed this petition on change.org. In addition, this petition is referenced in the article I cited in my writing, so it has been referenced before within an approved cite. StormWombat868 ( talk) 8:30, 11 April 2019 (PDT) Stormbat868 ( talk)
Requesting the whitelisting of the "News" (thepointsguy.com/news
) and "Reviews" (thepointsguy.com/reviews
) sections of The Points Guy, per the
RfC discussion on RSN. This was
discussed previously here, but the discussion was archived.
feminist (
talk) 13:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hell no for anything related to credit-cards. Use editorial discretion for usage in other areas and avoid if other sources can be located", which does not give me the feeling that all material that is not 'hell no' is generally usable for Wikipedia - the tone of that discussion is certainly not 'anything but all material related to credit cards is useful without any precautions'. The combination of the native advertising with the general reservations makes me careful for blanket whitelisting. Seen that in more than 2 weeks there has been only one attempt to add this material to any page outside of primary points suggests that all of these can easily be handled by individual whitelisting of that source.
thepointsguy.com/reviews/united-explorer-credit-card-review/
, which would be allowed to link if we were to grant this whitelisting, is a review of a credit card (the url gets rewritten). Secondly, thepointsguy.com/reviews/british-airways-777-first-class/
shows as disclaimer 'This post contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products.' which is, clearly, not neutral, but hints at native advertising for non-credit-card material. Yes, there is useful material on the site, but that seems to be rather limited. --
Dirk Beetstra
T
C 14:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Below are the credit card companies who offer products that we have affiliate links for: American Express; Bancorp Bank; Bank of America; Barclays; Brex; Capital One; Chase; Citibank; Discover; Founders Card; MBNA Canada; Luxury Card; USAA; US Bank; Virgin America; Wells Fargo
We also have affiliate relationships with companies who sell products that are not related to credit cards. Those companies include: Airbnb; Amazon; Apple; Away Luggage; CLEAR; David’s Vacation Clubs; Emirates; Expedia; Expert Flyer; Hotels.com; iTunes; Plastiq; Points.com(my bolding)
My advice is still, maybe open the /news part through blanket whitelisting (though I, REALLY, do not see we need to with such a low frequency and high rate of replaceability)(now with bolding). It was an advice, with a maybe, and a disclaimer that I do not see the need. So maybe you can describe to me what 'problem' you are trying to solve? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hell no for anything related to credit-cards. Use editorial discretion for usage in other areas and avoid if other sources can be located; The closer did not take into account any of those blacklisting related comments, it was not the question in the first place - the RfC is only asking for a statement on the reliability of the site, which has nothing to do with why it was blacklisted. Here we discuss whether the amount of spam that was received warrants keeping this on the blacklist, whether blacklisting this site is going to give a massive influx of whitelist requests so that other solutions may be better, and whether regulars so often run into the blacklist with this site while they are trying to cite information that cannot be replaced. We are now at 5 hits to the blacklist, 3 of them were replaced, and for the other 2, better sources are available.
To be refurbished with new business class seats beginning in 2019.In any case, Traveling for Miles is a blog (i.e. a self-published source) and should not be used as a reference. feminist ( talk) 14:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Newslinger (who proposed the original blacklisting for "egregiously spammed") thinks that despite the concerns with spamming, the News section can be whitelisted; this means that, for the /news section at least, the concern with spam is less significant than the problem with blocking content that can be used as a source, otherwise he/she would not have proposed the whitelisting.Plus, it is absurd to suggest that editors who have previously triggered the blacklist by adding a TPG link would add another one, because they know that it would trigger the filter as well and would not waste their time. feminist ( talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Newslinger (who proposed the original blacklisting for "egregiously spammed") thinks that despite the concerns with spamming, the News section can be whitelisted; this means that, for the /news section at least, the concern with spam is less significant than the problem with blocking content that can be used as a source, otherwise he/she would not have proposed the whitelisting. Plus, it is absurd to suggest that editors who have previously triggered the blacklist by adding a TPG link would add another one, because they know that it would trigger the filter as well and would not waste their time.This is not a fair "discussion" if one user controls whether the discussion would lead to a result. feminist ( talk) 01:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
As I said at the RFC, I see obvious COI issues which makes then questionable for anything other then attributed opinion, and even then with care. I see no reason to lift any ban (what are we losing?), but equally no reason to have a blanket blacklist of it. But then it was not blacklisted for reasons of reliability, but of spamming. So no it should not be lifted.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Feminist - it seems a decent site, following journalism norms of being open about COI, so I’m in favour of whitelisting news and reviews. I really don’t see them as one of the worse sites out there for RS usage, advertisements are fairly common and any site should be used with caution, plus using this would seem infrequenr, so having this one particularly blacklisted seems a bit excessive. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 01:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This discussion was escalated to the administrators' noticeboard, but unfortunately, it looks like the discussions there ( first, second) didn't receive much attention before they were archived. If we can't settle on whether this whitelisting request should be accepted, I would suggest starting an RfC here that addresses this specific issue. As far as I'm aware, it's not common to have RfCs on this page, but we have already exhausted all of the other discussion options. Feminist, since you're the strongest supporter of this whitelisting request, I think you're in the best position to start this RfC.
As for my personal opinion, I am ambivalent. Feminist has shown valid use cases for The Points Guy, but as I have explained in the noticeboard RfC, the site's affiliate relationships run too deep for me to endorse it. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
web.archive.org/web/20080216131304/http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/
I'm trying to add the correct number of total signatures for a list on UK Parliament petitions website. It's a petition from 2007 and the current BBC reference shows a total of 1.7 million signatures. However, as the archived page demonstrates, it increased to 1,811,414. I can't find the final number elsewhere. I read /Common requests but this petition ended more than 12 years ago, so WP:SOAP shouldn't apply. Johndavies837 ( talk) 21:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
change.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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
change.org/p/european-parliament-stop-the-censorship-machinery-save-the-internet
The signpost would like to use this link in the next "News and notes" piece regarding the EU copyright directive. Ping @ Smallbones, the new Editor-in-Chief and the author of the piece.
Thanks, -- DannyS712 ( talk) 04:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Requests to link to petition sites will, in all but exceptional cases, be summarily denied.- hopefully this qualifies as an exceptional case - its not being used in an article, but rather in Wikipedia's own reporting about a current news story. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 04:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
change.org/p/jimmy-wales-founder-of-wikipedia-create-and-enforce-new-policies-that-allow-for-true-scientific-discourse-about-holistic-approaches-to-healing/responses/11054
Likewise for the "In focus" piece. again. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 06:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
uofa.edu/aboutus/
For subject official website. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
web.archive.org/web/20180220142344/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2897545.0
web.archive.org/web/20180903204924/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2807542.0
web.archive.org/web/20170317063622/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=922898.0
web.archive.org/web/20151017050237/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709185.msg8013827
Hello,
I am in the midst of writing a page about the online gambling website bustabit. All of the official announcements made by the two prior owners (Eric Springer, Ryan Havar) and the current owner (Daniel Evans) have been made on the forum bitcointalk.org, which is a blacklisted site. I understand that bitcointalk.org is a forum and is generally filled with biased and uncited information. However, in this specific scenario, official announcements regarding the website have been made on (and exclusively on) this forum. I am submitting the archive links to the respective bitcointalk announcements so the actual announcements can be preserved, and any comments that are added on later aren't included in the source.
I'd like these links whitelisted since there is very little data online about bustabit and provably fair gambling sites in general, and this is the only reliable source. Although the website itself is not reliable, the people themselves who are making the specific posts I linked to are. Thus, I would like you to consider whitelisting those specific archived links I submitted above so I can proceed with publishing the article. Many thanks!
Goditor ( talk) 14:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
gofundme.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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
Previously requested on 13 March 2019 at 18:34 (UTC), this request was un-acted-upon (neither approved nor denied) prior to archival, so I'm renewing it. At my article draft ( User:Fourthords/Rescue of the Sea Nymph) I'm trying to cite an unsuccessful GoFundMe campaign. My other reliable source(s) talk about the creation of the campaign and its rate of success at the time of publishing, but none discuss its current state, so I need to use the primary source. The specific link that's in my citation is as follows:
www.gofundme.com/truth-in-media
.Today it's my draft, though I plan to move it to rescue of Sea Nymph after this process. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
mangauk.com/homepage
mangauk.com/about-us
I previously tried to get this website link out of the spam backlist, but it was rejected by someone as they said it was spammed by people in the past and I should refer to here for specific details. I only want the home page (main) and the about pages of this site for the Manga Entertainment page as it’s the company’s official site. Luigitehplumber ( talk) 08:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
hubpages.com/education/Futurism-Illuminating-New-Perspectives-in-the-Visual-Arts
One of the more rigorously researched and sourced articles available online covering the painting Street Light (painting) and others. — swpb T • go beyond • bad idea 13:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
change.org/p/danny-habuki-sexual-assault-and-harassment-reform-at-soka-university-of-america
Please release this page in the official website, for inclusion in Soka University of America. While I have another source to corroborate my writing, I would like to cite the number of people who signed this petition on change.org. In addition, this petition is referenced in the article I cited in my writing, so it has been referenced before within an approved cite. StormWombat868 ( talk) 8:30, 11 April 2019 (PDT) Stormbat868 ( talk)
Requesting the whitelisting of the "News" (thepointsguy.com/news
) and "Reviews" (thepointsguy.com/reviews
) sections of The Points Guy, per the
RfC discussion on RSN. This was
discussed previously here, but the discussion was archived.
feminist (
talk) 13:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hell no for anything related to credit-cards. Use editorial discretion for usage in other areas and avoid if other sources can be located", which does not give me the feeling that all material that is not 'hell no' is generally usable for Wikipedia - the tone of that discussion is certainly not 'anything but all material related to credit cards is useful without any precautions'. The combination of the native advertising with the general reservations makes me careful for blanket whitelisting. Seen that in more than 2 weeks there has been only one attempt to add this material to any page outside of primary points suggests that all of these can easily be handled by individual whitelisting of that source.
thepointsguy.com/reviews/united-explorer-credit-card-review/
, which would be allowed to link if we were to grant this whitelisting, is a review of a credit card (the url gets rewritten). Secondly, thepointsguy.com/reviews/british-airways-777-first-class/
shows as disclaimer 'This post contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products.' which is, clearly, not neutral, but hints at native advertising for non-credit-card material. Yes, there is useful material on the site, but that seems to be rather limited. --
Dirk Beetstra
T
C 14:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Below are the credit card companies who offer products that we have affiliate links for: American Express; Bancorp Bank; Bank of America; Barclays; Brex; Capital One; Chase; Citibank; Discover; Founders Card; MBNA Canada; Luxury Card; USAA; US Bank; Virgin America; Wells Fargo
We also have affiliate relationships with companies who sell products that are not related to credit cards. Those companies include: Airbnb; Amazon; Apple; Away Luggage; CLEAR; David’s Vacation Clubs; Emirates; Expedia; Expert Flyer; Hotels.com; iTunes; Plastiq; Points.com(my bolding)
My advice is still, maybe open the /news part through blanket whitelisting (though I, REALLY, do not see we need to with such a low frequency and high rate of replaceability)(now with bolding). It was an advice, with a maybe, and a disclaimer that I do not see the need. So maybe you can describe to me what 'problem' you are trying to solve? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hell no for anything related to credit-cards. Use editorial discretion for usage in other areas and avoid if other sources can be located; The closer did not take into account any of those blacklisting related comments, it was not the question in the first place - the RfC is only asking for a statement on the reliability of the site, which has nothing to do with why it was blacklisted. Here we discuss whether the amount of spam that was received warrants keeping this on the blacklist, whether blacklisting this site is going to give a massive influx of whitelist requests so that other solutions may be better, and whether regulars so often run into the blacklist with this site while they are trying to cite information that cannot be replaced. We are now at 5 hits to the blacklist, 3 of them were replaced, and for the other 2, better sources are available.
To be refurbished with new business class seats beginning in 2019.In any case, Traveling for Miles is a blog (i.e. a self-published source) and should not be used as a reference. feminist ( talk) 14:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Newslinger (who proposed the original blacklisting for "egregiously spammed") thinks that despite the concerns with spamming, the News section can be whitelisted; this means that, for the /news section at least, the concern with spam is less significant than the problem with blocking content that can be used as a source, otherwise he/she would not have proposed the whitelisting.Plus, it is absurd to suggest that editors who have previously triggered the blacklist by adding a TPG link would add another one, because they know that it would trigger the filter as well and would not waste their time. feminist ( talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Newslinger (who proposed the original blacklisting for "egregiously spammed") thinks that despite the concerns with spamming, the News section can be whitelisted; this means that, for the /news section at least, the concern with spam is less significant than the problem with blocking content that can be used as a source, otherwise he/she would not have proposed the whitelisting. Plus, it is absurd to suggest that editors who have previously triggered the blacklist by adding a TPG link would add another one, because they know that it would trigger the filter as well and would not waste their time.This is not a fair "discussion" if one user controls whether the discussion would lead to a result. feminist ( talk) 01:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
As I said at the RFC, I see obvious COI issues which makes then questionable for anything other then attributed opinion, and even then with care. I see no reason to lift any ban (what are we losing?), but equally no reason to have a blanket blacklist of it. But then it was not blacklisted for reasons of reliability, but of spamming. So no it should not be lifted.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Feminist - it seems a decent site, following journalism norms of being open about COI, so I’m in favour of whitelisting news and reviews. I really don’t see them as one of the worse sites out there for RS usage, advertisements are fairly common and any site should be used with caution, plus using this would seem infrequenr, so having this one particularly blacklisted seems a bit excessive. Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 01:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This discussion was escalated to the administrators' noticeboard, but unfortunately, it looks like the discussions there ( first, second) didn't receive much attention before they were archived. If we can't settle on whether this whitelisting request should be accepted, I would suggest starting an RfC here that addresses this specific issue. As far as I'm aware, it's not common to have RfCs on this page, but we have already exhausted all of the other discussion options. Feminist, since you're the strongest supporter of this whitelisting request, I think you're in the best position to start this RfC.
As for my personal opinion, I am ambivalent. Feminist has shown valid use cases for The Points Guy, but as I have explained in the noticeboard RfC, the site's affiliate relationships run too deep for me to endorse it. — Newslinger talk 05:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)