MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/07

mokimobility.com/about/


mokimobility.com/about/ For use on MokiMobility.

I accepted this article at AFC today and tried to include the company website in the infobox but the domain is blacklisted. Refer to this discussion where an editor suggested using the company's "About" page rather than its landing page.

I've reviewed the page, and the company's "About" page has information that readers might find useful.QuantifiedElf (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * to whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

silkroadvb5piz3r.onion


To give a little background, .onion address lead to hidden websites, and they always incorporate a hash string. This fact makes them hard to verify and therefore vulnerable to substitution by links to phishing sites, which is why the whole .onion TLD was recently blacklisted. The discussion at the time anticipated that the whitelist would be used to permit the handful of necessary .onion links. The Silk Road article has been prone to such phishing attacks, so I welcome this policy. As can be seen from this discussion, some people have expressed strong views against including this link in the article. The !votes have a small bias towards inclusion, and (as I cover in more detail in my review here and ensuing discussion) none of the opposing votes succeed in explaining why this link would contravene our policies. The main policy cited is WP:ELNO which does not apply to official links. The WMF has announced that there is no legal issue with this link that requires their intervention.

Following a link to a hidden website requires additional software beyond a vanilla web browser, but this is also true of external links to videos and PDFs. For comparison, see the .onion link used here. We could undoubtedly do better at presenting links to hidden websites, for example by creating a template that allows the user to use a selection of proxy services.

An associated configuration change in XLinkBot may be required, as it is apparently also policing a restriction on .onion links.

As an administrator, I could go ahead and add the link to the whitelist myself but, given some of the things that have have been said and done with respect to this issue, I thought that it might reduce drama to open it for discussion here first. I urge anyone contributing to this thread to avoid rehashing points that have been adequately explored in the links above. Bovlb (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As the administrator who has been suggesting a couple of times to blacklist all off .onion (though I did not blacklist the domain myself), I agree that the fact that we blacklist ALL of .onion does not mean that official sites should not be whitelisted. There have been many problems with .onion (insertion of redirects, insertion of phishing links 'redirecting' to the original) but I believe that this should be done.
 * The XLinkBot rule does not need adaptation, that only is for non-established accounts/IPs, anyone with a 'given' right is ignored completely, and autoconfirmed users are not reverted. Moreover, XLinkBot can be reverted and the bot will not re-revert, the bot will 'assume' good faith on the reversions.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And as the administrator who actually added *.onion to the blacklist, I have no objection to adding official .onion domains to the whitelist. I think this is a reasonable request. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * to whitelist. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

www.youporn.com

 * I requested the whitelisting here http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&direction=next&oldid=1127848#youporn.com in 2008, but then forgot about it. I saw I was referenced to request the whitelisting here, which I do thus with delay... helohe (talk)  15:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You were directed here to request whitelisting of a specific page on youporn.com, not the entire domain. To whitelist their home page we'd need an absolute path there, like www.youporn.com/index.php (which doesn't work). Do you have a path name to a specific page to suggest? Typically we'd whitelist a site's "about us" page, but I don't see one. The most relevant one might be the site map page: www.youporn.com/sitemap.html. Will that work? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think sitemap is fine, I can link that. --helohe (talk)  15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * to whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * to whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

eqt5g4fuenphqinx.onion


To give some background, *.onion addresses has been discussed several times, with the first time originated from the Tor (anonymity network) regarding a link to The Hidden Wiki a few years ago. At that time, the article had several .onion links, and consensus from that discussion resulted in all but one to be removed, the hidden wiki to be blacklisted, and *.onion to be put on the xlinkbot list. The link that was kept is the one here that I would like to be whitelisted, and is an rather basic introduction/welcome page for the .onion hidden service network. The link has been on the tor project article ever since consensus was created and no vandalism has yet to be seen over the years its been there.

However, a discussion on Silk Road (marketplace) promoted a new request for blacklisting all the *.onion addresses, and was rather quick granted with no discussion on the blacklist noticeboard, thus adding the still xlinkbot listed item to the blacklist. To avoid problems, I would thus like that the above introduction page to be whitelisted.

See #silkroadvb5piz3r.onion discussion below for additional context and background, and the blacklist archive. Belorn (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reasonable request, . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/article/modelmanagement-com-s-6-tips?cid=db_articles
Requesting URL page to be removed from blacklist. I need the URL page for my article Bokyqwer (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * . That examiner article isn't coverage. It appears to be no more than a puff piece written to promote a social networking site. I suggest going directly to the original source; use http://www.modelmanagement.com/modeling-advice/modeling-tips/ instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

suvenirograd.ru
Request single page page suvenirograd.ru/impressions.php?id=2&lang=2&pid=9 to be allowed on page Karp_Lykov. That page is a description (in English) of a research trip (written and performed by G. Kramor Employee of the Yershov museum - I have no further information on these names; the page appears genuine though with "pictures by the author"). The page offers more specific descriptions of the religious background and about the place of origin of Karp_Lykov and his family. Both aspects are relevant to his history of fleeing into Siberian solitarity for 42 years. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This site looks like a shop. Please clarify/confirm that this is a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read my request? And how do the advertisements in say NYT or any other newspaper (not) discredit the content pages? -DePiep (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

. I read your request. The site itself looks like an online store, which does not fill me with confidence that any articles they may publish would be considered reliable sources. Nobody mentioned advertisements; that's irrelevant. What matters is whether the personal "travel impressions" (which is how the site describes these articles) of an "employee of the Yershov museum" can be considered a reliable source. Please take your case to WP:RSN to get a community view of the reliability of this source. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌. No RSN request in evidence, assuming the requester is no longer interested. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/article/let-s-get-old-school-for-a-moment-aardwolf-mud
I hope to use this web page as a reference for the Wikipedia article "Aardwolf (MUD)". The web page contains detailed information about Aardwolf, including an in-depth interview with the MUD's developer, Lasher. It is clear that the author has played the MUD. For what it's worth, I have also played the MUD and I can verify that the information is accurate. I understand that examiner.com is blacklisted due to its model of article creation. However I believe that the information on this particular web page is accurate and reliable. Axl ¤  [Talk]  19:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello? Axl  ¤  [Talk]  16:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What is it about that interview that would be useful for referencing in the article? Given the author's bio, I'll grant that the piece is accurate and reliable; however, because something in examiner.com is accurate and reliable isn't a reason to whitelist it. Convenience also isn't a reason to whitelist. Why is this a useful reference on Wikipedia? What information in it can't be found anywhere else? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Being accurate, reliable & convenient aren't good reasons to whitelist a web page? I find that surprising. Are there (consensus-derived) guidelines to help decide which web pages should be whitelisted?


 * To address your question: I found three other sources that are suitable as references. Of these, one is an interview with the MUD designer/owner. That is an older page, from 2009. The examiner.com article is from 2011, with more up to date information. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The blacklist contains several sources that are accurate, reliable, and convenient. They are blacklisted due to a history of abuse. That is the only consideration. Their accuracy, reliability, or convenience are completely irrelevant considerations to the blacklist. Convenience, especially, is not a reason to white-list. There is no requirement for sources to be online.
 * However, reliability is a consideration for white-listing, provided that alternatives don't exist. I assume with good faith that you believe the article is useful for Wikipedia. So I ask again, how? If alternative sources are available, what would motivate Wikipedia to provide examiner.com with yet another revenue stream by white-listing one of its pages? Is there something unique in that article, beyond being published in 2011, that would be useful to reference where no other source will do? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not disputing the reasons for blacklisting a website. Rather, I disagree with your criteria for whitelisting a web page. Since you haven't pointed to (consensus-derived) guidelines, I assume that your criteria are simply your own opinion. Alongside reliability, in my opinion one of the most important criteria is the likelihood of future spam ("abuse") if whitelisted—something that you haven't mentioned at all. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  20:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My answer basically followed the consensus that has been long-established for this page. It's also stated to you right up front in the big green box that appears when you edit a section on this page: A whitelisted link must be useful to Wikipedia. It follows that if alternatives are available, then those alternatives should be used rather than whitelisting a link. I ask again: Is there something unique in that article that would be useful to reference where no other source will do? Your last statement is a non-sequitur. Future abuse doesn't follow from whitelisting a single page; that's more about whitelisting an entire site. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ❌ Stifle (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/


It would be a nice addition for the Water_fluoridation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.157.151 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 April 2013


 * Perhaps. An identical request to yours was made last year and declined: MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/01.


 * I have looked closely at this article. While the site is clearly an advocacy site with a bias, that particular article appears to be well researched and referenced to other reliable sources. My concern is that this is a WP:TERTIARY source of uncertain reliability. It would be far better to examine the sources cited to be certain that fluoridealert.org isn't engaging in synthesis or original research in its interpretation of those sources, and cite those sources instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Stifle (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

www.metaldetectingforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11904&p=100971
I would like to use this specific forum thread on the External coverage section of Day of Archaeology because the link illustrates the point that 'The project covers any form of work...'. The link is illustrative rather than being used to make a point about archaeology. Thanks PatHadley (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * . See WP:ELNO item 10. We could make an exception if the forum was an official forum for the project, but that isn't the case here. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

www.examiner.com/article/june-29-friday-global-day-of-archaeology
I would like to use this article on External coverage section of Day of Archaeology because the link illustrates a piece of coverage in non-archaeology-specific media that the project generated. I realise that examiner.com is at /common requests but am not using the information content of the article - its mere existence is relevant. Thanks PatHadley (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "mere existence" of something on examiner.com is no more relevant than existence on a blog or any other site consisting of user-generated content. Because anybody can publish anything they want on examiner.com without any editorial oversight, it is hardly surprising that someone interested in archaeology would post a note about it there. If any non-archaeology-specific media with editorial oversight deems it appropriate to publish an article about the project, that would be relevant. Therefore . ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Article on ComputerVision computer company
This article www.cbronline.com/news/computervision_agrees_to_sell_prime_informationopen_to_vmark

should be added to the whitelist as it explains a crucial step in how Prime Information became acquired by Rocket Software. It's valuable for the history it pinpoints. It's just an article on the sale of a computer asset from one company to another. Wjhonson (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Alternative sources can't be found? Here's one: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonherald/access/68797430.html?dids=68797430:68797430&FMT=ABS which contains the quotation (this came from Google cache, it's visible if you pay for the full version) "VMark Software will buy the software developed by Prime to allow customers an ... the Bedford company prepared to go public as a born-again Computervision." ~Amatulić (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Stifle (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

www.findspermdonor.com/default

 * findspermdonor.com/default
 * Why it should be whitelisted: FindSpermDonor.com is an online sperm bank. It's an online sperm donor catalog and it's non-commercial. It's a sperm bank as any other sperm bank, just online and hassle free.
 * Which article would benefit: Anyone who searched for "Sperm Donor" or "Sperm Bank" articles should be interested in such a site as an external link. It's as relevant as "http://dk.cryosinternational.com" which appears on the "Sperm_bank" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babydate (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 April 2013‎
 * . Invalid rationale. This page is for requesting whitelisting of specific pages, not entire domains. Also, we generally don't entertain requests from users with a conflict of interest. -Amatulic
 * The front page is enough. the link is updated.
 * You have not provided any valid rationale for whitelisting. The fact that it's an online sperm bank is irrelevant. The fact that it's non-commercial is irrelevant. The fact that it's online and "hassle free" is irrelevant.
 * We don't white-list for the purpose of including external links, we white-list for the purpose of including references, or external links to companies for which the company is the article topic — and we have no article about this company. Also the dk.cryosinternational.com links are not necessarily relevant (one is dead); they look like refspam, and their presence are not a reason to include links to other company web sites. Therefore, this request is . ~Amatulić (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The main topic of this website is a sperm bank, so this is practically a link to a company which is the topic of the article. This was my rational. I do apologize that it seemed like an automated spam. I manually edited all the entries since I believed it can contribute to the topic as an external link to a sperm bank company in a sperm bank/sperm donor topic Babydate (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did this not get blacklisted in the last couple of days because of all the spam? .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Did this not get blacklisted in the last couple of days because of all the spam? .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Single Page: squidoo.com/RachelMaddowShowBookList
Explain why the site should be whitelisted:

I created this article/webpage because I could not find a list of the books written by the guests on The Rachel Maddow Show. Many television shows and radio shows have a section of their website where they list the books and music which appears on the show. The Rachel Maddow show does not have such a page. The Rachel Maddow Blog (maddowblog.msnbc.com/) lists the names of the guests and occasionally will mention if the guest is an author and may mention a specific book the author has written. However, this is NOT done consistently. And there is not a single page on the site which provides a single listing. If an author and/or their book is noted it is buried under the entry for that date, not displayed in a separate section labelled "books."

The same is true for the music used on the show. Nightly there is a different song used for the transitions to and from commercials and to and from different segments of the show. The Maddow Blog lists this but not in a concise or easy way to find. The name of the song is often hidden in a link which involves a clever pun. While I'm a big fan of puns, it does make it difficult to find the name of the song. Which is why I included the bumper music as well as the books in my article.

I create the list of books on the page by using the Guest List posted on the Rachel Maddow Blog for each night's show. I search Amazon and Wikipedia to see if they have written any books. If they have, I list the author's most recently published book on my page. I include a short one line description of the author, usually with their affiliation and I provide a link to the Wikipedia article about the author if one exists and if it does not have a "trouble flag" of some kind. If there is no Wikipedia article, I do a Google search and include a link to the authors homepage if one exists or to an "about the author" page on the most authoritative site I can find. Usually this is on the webpage of the institution with which the author is affiliated: NPR, think tanks, newspapers, magazines, publisher websites, or non-profit organizations.

Here is an excerpt from the introduction of my article which explains more fully the scope and purpose of my article/web page:


 * "The Rachel Maddow Show usually features one or two guests during the sixty minute program who are, sometimes, also authors who have written one or more books.
 * Usually the guest author is there to provide commentary on the topic of the day, or to be interviewed because they are the topic of the day. Therefore, any plug of the author's book is secondary to the author's pundit or news role.
 * Given that focus, it is understandable that there is no easy or concise way to find a list of the books mentioned or featured on the show. Trust me, I looked.
 * I'm a librarian and I'm pretty good at finding information on the Internet, IF it exists: there is NOT a simple concise list of the books and songs from TRMS.
 * So I decided to create one!"
 * I'm a librarian and I'm pretty good at finding information on the Internet, IF it exists: there is NOT a simple concise list of the books and songs from TRMS.
 * So I decided to create one!"
 * So I decided to create one!"
 * So I decided to create one!"

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. I would like to add a link to my article/bibliography in the external links section of this article on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_maddow_show I think that people looking for information about the Rachel Maddow Show would benefit from having this information about the books and music from the show.

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. This is the page I am requesting to be whitelisted. Just this page, not the whole domain: squidoo.com/RachelMaddowShowBookList

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TxCowboyDancer (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of some key Wikipedia policies and guidelines that you are proposing to violate with this request?
 * Verifiability
 * External links item 11
 * No original research
 * Engaging in original research on some other site and linking to it isn't really any different from engaging in original research directly in a Wikipedia article. In this case you might be able to write a list article on Wikipedia called List of books featured on the Rachel Maddow Show and link to that from The Rachel Maddow Show but I suspect such a list article may get deleted as trivia.
 * I don't doubt your expertise as a librarian, or your good faith efforts in creating that site on Squidoo. But Wikipedia policies and guidelines are pretty clear that your Squidoo page wouldn't last long on Wikipedia even if it were whitelisted. Therefore, I have no choice but to mark this request as . ~Amatulić (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I wasn't aware of those policies. Thank you for the link. I'm new here on the editing side of Wikipedia. I've used the site for some time but never created an account. :-) Thank you for your time in considering the request.  --TxCowboyDancer (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your understanding. I liked the work you did, but my personal opinion also wouldn't justify whitelisting. If you give the same attention to detail and thoroughness in your contributions to Wikipedia as you did to that site, then you will be an asset to Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

cypress.com

 * 1) why. It should be added to the whitelist because Cypress Semiconductor is a 31-year old IC manufacturing corporation in Silicon Valley.  No corporation with a stock symbol should ever be put on the blacklist, seriously! see http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:CY •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 11:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) which articles.  PSoC and Cypress Semiconductor.  I've been working on various ARM processor articles, so PSoC is why I'm here today. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 11:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) specific link. www.cypress.com/?id=4749&source=productshome and investors.cypress.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=758772 and there are plenty more references that I need to cleanup or fix in the article. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 11:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Google finance links are irrelevant to the blacklist. The age of the company is irrelevant to the blacklist. I also admire the company, as do many investors, but your personal views or mine are also irrelevant. All that really matters is past behavior, and Cypress's past deserves blacklisting. Accept that and move on.
 * I'd have no problem with the first link request, but wouldn't the general products overview page be better? That one's at www.cypress.com/?id=2&source=header -- I'll tell you up front that an admin will likely not want to white-list every single product page on that site. An encyclopedia article isn't a portal to a company web site, after all.
 * As to the second link: Press releases are inappropriate for using as references, as are any other self-published material. Also, press releases are widely available, so there is no need to white-list such pages from a blacklisted domain. See http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130424005635/en/Fully-Qualified-Production-Silicon-Cypress%E2%80%99s-PSoC%C2%AE-4 as an alternative. Please restrict your requests to pages that have no alternative elsewhere. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * ❌ Stifle (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

youtu.be/RevU_fNpITE

 * youtu.be/RevU_fNpITE

Request single page to be added to Saidels Bakery as a reference, it is the only TV appearance of Les Saidel to date and thus a very important reference to the page. Eliezersaidel (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * . Use the full youtube.com URL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RevU_fNpITE, which isn't blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Google redirect link
www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&ved=0CEIQFjAFOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcnr.state.pa.us%2Fcs%2Fgroups%2Fpublic%2Fdocuments%2Fdocument%2Fdcnr_010537.docx&ei=zDGIUf8Yx-HTAaXfgbgK&usg=AFQjCNGRnbqtA7WOHFSiR222FQT86YZCeg

Trying to use this page as a source in a draft I'm working on, but the spam blacklist won't let it through :(. King Jakob  C2 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * . Don't use Google redirect links (or any other redirect link from anyone else) on Wikipedia. Use the direct link instead. In this case http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_010537.docx is not blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

www.annyas.com/screenshots/saul-bass-title-sequences
Request that this single page from this website be whitelisted so that I can add it to the Saul Bass page as an external link, as it offers one of the most complete selections and analyses of Saul Bass title sequences on the web. Thanks, Hulahoop122 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC).
 * According to the logs, that specific link is the primary reason why annyas.com is blacklisted, not just on the English Wikipedia, but globally across all Wikis. Not sure about whether that site infringes copyrights either, but from my perspective it looks like fair use. Anyway, for now, but other admin comments are welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

examiner.com article on Ron Paul march

 * examiner.com/article/historic-veterans-for-ron-paul-march-on-the-white-house
 * examiner.com/article/historic-veterans-for-ron-paul-march-on-the-white-house

The individual link i am requesting to be permitted is: examiner.com/article/historic-veterans-for-ron-paul-march-on-the-white-house

I have been researching several sources/link pertaining to the event in question, 2012 Ron Paul veteran march on DC. And this seemed to be the only link that outlined a key segment from the event; the part where they stood in silence, reverse from the White House — 8 minutes for those killed in suicide and another 20 minutes for those killed in battle. While i have used other sources/links for citation of other lines for the wiki article (Adam Kokesh), only this can be used to source the moment of silence part. Thanks in advance. DA1 (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * because alternative reliable sources are easily found within seconds. Did you miss sources such as: International Business Times and ABC news? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, have you read my explanation? I actually have sourced those links in the wiki article already. The reason for the examiner link is specifically to cite the claim regarding the time length for the moment-of-silence (8min and 20min). There are NO other articles online that mention how long the moment-of-silence was and how it was broken down. If you can get it, please let me know. If not, then please allow the link passage. DA1 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

www.avoiceformen.com/author/erin-pizzey/ articles
I attempted to get the site off the blacklist and this was rejected, and it was suggested I apply to get certain articles useful for Wikipedia whitelisted. Wikipedia has an article about Erin Pizzey, the notable founder of the first domestic violence shelter in the world. She has written several articles she has consented to be published on AV4M and I would like all of them to be linkable. The section title is her author overview page, and here are the specific article links I would like to see whitelisted:
 * 1) www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/from-avfm-editor-at-large-erin-pizzey/
 * 2) www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/erin-pizzey-reflects-on-toronto/
 * 3) www.avoiceformen.com/miscellaneous/aerobics/
 * 4) www.avoiceformen.com/women/working-with-violent-women/
 * 5) www.avoiceformen.com/updates/live-now-on-reddit/
 * 6) www.avoiceformen.com/updates/erin-pizzey-live-on-reddit-part-2/
 * 7) www.avoiceformen.com/updates/statement-from-erin-pizzey/

If we have an article about a person, linking to things that person wrote is quite useful for establishing who they are and what they are about. Ranze (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Howabout you just put a sentence somewhere in the article that she has published work on the website of a voice for men. The interested reader can probably do a google search on his or her own. -- Avi (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Showing which works someone has published as a 'proof' that someone publishes on a site is a form of using primary sourcing. Moreover, we are not a web-directory to show what works someone has published and link to all of that.  Please find a reliable source thát she is publishing there, and use that as a reference - this is just not necessary, except if some of these works are really necessary as a reference to verify another fact.  Please read WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SPAM to see what our relevant policies and guidelines are for linking, what should be linked and what does not need to be linked.  .  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

youtu.be/0Vf8zH4E6fM


I would like to cite the video of the construction of the folkfloor at Northwest Folklife -- in the folk tradition much of the history is oral and this video provides an oral/video record of how the floor was started, how it's built, and the materials used in its construction (Masonite, and Homasote. This community building-event has been going on for more than 25 years. RichardLetts (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a redirect service, specifically for YouTube. Since YouTube itself has problems (there are several cases where specific youtube links are blacklisted, here and on meta), is anyway (often) a discouraged link, and redirect services are (except for very, very few exceptions) utterly not necessary for Wikipedia (moreover, most redirecting services obscure what is being linked), the redirect site has been meta-blacklisted to avoid blacklist evasion and give clarity of linking - you can use the full link instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vf8zH4E6fM.   - but I hope this helps and explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

www.uitmetkorting.nl
I would like to cite an article (research) on Uitmetkorting.nl (this one http://www.uitmetkorting.nl/informatie/autipas/) at both Dutch Wiki sites about Autistic people (nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/autisme & nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/autipas. In this article all Dutch day recreation attractions are contacted to find out if they accept the Autistic passport (Autipas in Dutch). This is the only reliable and complete overview available online which state what conditions every day attraction has in allowing autistic people to visit there park/zoo/museum etc.
 * Obviously, since you can link it here, it is not blacklisted here. It is only blacklisted on the Dutch Wikipedia, which means that you will have to ask for delisting there.  Nothing to do here, so marking as .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

smashinginterviews.com (again)


Requesting that this URL be removed from the blacklist. Not quite sure why this one is being blocked, It is a well-respected and notable magazine, including interviews with high-profile people. Any help would be appreciated here. Boboman360 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * . This page is for requesting white-listing of specific links, not whole domains. There's also a decline request below for smashinginterviews; see that to get an idea of the burden the nominator must meet. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com on cotton candy

 * examiner.com/article/december-7-is-cotton-candy-day

Request single page to be added to cotton candy as a reference, it is the only source of information regarding whether cotton candy is mainly air. The page is mainly about the subject of air in cotton candy. Coolboygcp (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How is this article a reliable source? MER-C 11:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

IWA Water Wiki on sewage treatment page


The IWA water wiki contains information on sewage treatment processes from the nearest thing there is to an international body on sewage (and water) treatment. referencing this in the external links for sewage treatment & the entry on the IWA itself seems reasonable for making more information available. 213.253.35.226 (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What link on what domain are you talking about? If you leave off the 'http://' from the beginning of the link, you will be able to add it and save it here.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Done it in a kludgy manner on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Water_Association#External_links 213.253.35.226 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I removed that again, tracking now above. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This appears to be no longer relevant; will close. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

www.bet-at-home.com
This is the homepage of Bet-at-home.com, and thus it should be enabled for this page. It is plain stupid, that an [http:// www.casino-review.org/go/bet-at-home/ internet redirect page] is needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It is linked from the page. I agree, we should whitelist a 'index.htm' here.  Bet-at-home was spammed in the past.
 * Note, casino-review.org is NOT an internet redirect page, it is an affiliate spam site:
 * 'casino-review.org/go/bet-at-home/' was added to Bet-at-home, redirects to 'www.bet-at-home.com/default.aspx?pname=a_73600b_2&affid=51431'
 * 'casino-review.org/go/betonline/' was added to BetOnline, redirects to 'betonline.ag/?btag=a_36044b_2c_&affid=82787'
 * 'casino-review.org/go/betfred/' was added to Betfred, redirects to 'betfred.mobi/siteservices/affiliate/tracking.ashx?Affid=11109&Btag=a_16760b_4132c_&target=http://www.betfred.com&entrypoint=1'
 * These casino-review.org links were NOT added in good faith or to enable linking, they are plain spam and have hence been meta-blacklisted.
 * I would be favourable actually to de-listing bet-at-home on meta, it has legitimate use now cross-wiki. Unfortunately, old requests for that were never done in a serious way.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be favourable actually to de-listing bet-at-home on meta, it has legitimate use now cross-wiki. Unfortunately, old requests for that were never done in a serious way.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Stifle (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

www.iaemagazine.com/feed/Vol2iss9/brian-malouf-vp-walt-disney-records.html
I would like to use this interview link as one source for a new page, the subject of which is music producer, mixer, and record executive Brian Malouf. The interview, which I can't find anywhere else, includes specific pieces of information that are relevant to his biography (how he got his start, working with Michael Jackson, etc) and which would corroborate generic discography lists. --Adamstrangelove (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a valid request. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com - 2 links
I see Examiner.com being denied a lot on here, but one was allowed because it was an interview with the subject of the article it was to be used on. That is my same situation, the two articles that I want to use are original interviews; www.examiner.com/article/interview-with-yoshiki-of-x-japan & www.examiner.com/article/interview-with-kaoru-and-die-of-dir-en-grey-on-the-band-s-dum-spiro-spero-tour. I'd like to use them on X Japan; the first because it explicitly comes from a band member and says that they left the Sony record label specifically because Atlantic offered them a worldwide deal; and the second because a member of Dir En Grey says they were inspired by X Japan, so I'd like to include it in the Influence section. Xfansd (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * That interview with Yoshiki is one of the more useless, cryptic, and content free interviews I have seen. This is not a high quality source.
 * http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/global/1310471/reunited-x-japan-confirm-us-europe-dates says that the group signed a worldwide deal with Atlantic in 1992. It seems obvious that a band who had not published outside of Japan would sign onto a record label offering a worldwide deal.
 * According to http://www.sequentialtart.com/article.php?id=2124, X Japan cofounder Yoshiki helped create Dir En Gray. The Wikipedia article on Dir En Gray even says Yoshiki wrote songs for the band. I don't see the "inspiration" factoid brought forth in an interview as relevant, given the intertwined history of both bands and their members.
 * I'm not convinced these links need whitelisting because alternatives appear to be available. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree it is not a particularly informative interview, hence I was only going to use it for that one part. I just thought since its coming straight from a member that they "left" (not dropped or contract expired) the label specifically because another offered a worldwide deal, that it is a more useful source than one that just says they signed to a new label. To say that Yoshiki "created" Dir en grey is way more credit than deserved, just like their article says he arranged and produced a couple of early songs. I don't see how you think the inspiration factoid is irrelevant though, it is common practice to add such info to bands' articles. Maybe you meant that the inspiration was fairly obvious, therefore there's no need for this one source? I guess I was just trying to use sources that flat-out say these things from the band members, rather than ones that simply report them. As long as no one tries to split hairs because of that and tries to have those parts removed from the X Japan article I can live without the Examiner sources. Xfansd (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems reasonable to approve this request. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

FluorideAlert.org (again)


WWW.FluorideAlert.org should be white listed. It is the most complete and professional reference on the problems with water fluoridation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfb102455 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You're not the first who has tried to get this extremely fringe website accepted, but there are ZERO good reasons for doing so. You've been answered quite nicely here:


 * Talk:Water fluoridation controversy


 * Contrary to your claim that the Water fluoridation controversy article has "not one atom of the fluoride controversy in this article," it actually documents the controversy quite well, using much more reliable sources than FAN, "a Mom and Pop organization, being run by a undistinguished (largely unpublished) and undecorated (zero national awards) professor retired from a tiny college together with his son and his wife." -- Brangifer (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * . Fringe site, so way in the world is this a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)