This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am taking the google groups source out. I wish to remind a certain someone of something he said:
It has already been shown that according to Wikipedia policy, a Usenet post is NOT a suitable source for a Wikipedia article. You might want to attempt illustrating a different point, because your pen has run dry. - Chadbryant 13:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) TruthCrusader 07:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of coming to a resolution on this? Tyrenius 23:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I take that as a "no" then. Tyrenius 00:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
If a legit source can be found for the results than fine. In the past on Wikipedia, Google posts have NOT be allowed as sources of information even as an external link. Only Google post counts have been permitted. I will ignore the personal attack made by Mr. Bryant. TruthCrusader 15:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Please follow VERIFY and also NPA. Failure to do so is a violation of policy and can result in the user being blocked. Tyrenius 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a dispute over this external link. Kindly quote the exact part of policy/guidelines that supports your view (with ref to appropriate policy page). Tip: WP:EL might help. Remember this link is not being used as a source. No comments required: put them in another part of this page. Please don't sign the quotes, as they're not personal opinions - they're just quotes from policy. Thank you.
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources. TruthCrusader 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
End of external links policy quotes Tyrenius 05:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Chad, I wonder if you have an explanation for the fact that Chad Bryant is amending the posting guide on rec.sport.pro-wrestling. [1] Tyrenius 16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Because that site is the disputed external link and you seem to be involved with it directly. Tyrenius 10:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was 21 minutes before your post. Tyrenius 11:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You're posting on rec.sport.pro-wrestling, which is the external link you are arguing for, so that is relevant. Tyrenius 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making a point. I'm just trying to clarify if there is a point or not. Tyrenius 00:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The links prove that mr.Bryant is indeed, the owner of the 'semi official' rspw website and as such, under Wikipedia policy, it should not be listed as an external link on the rapw entry. TruthCrusader 06:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.) 3. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link. This is from Wikipedia:EL Official Policy TruthCrusader 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The article should have been reverted to the last non-"DickWitham" version before being protected. - Chadbryant 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
As it is not normal to link to blog, perhaps, Chad, you could make your case, as concisely as possible, stating:
Tyrenius 11:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As it is not normal to link to archived Usenet posts, perhaps, Chad, you could make your case, as concisely as possible, stating:
Tyrenius 02:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems like a good argument to me. Now let's hang on and see if there is any response to this. Tyrenius 03:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought the TV tapings moved from Orlando to Atlanta long before 2000 at Center Stage Theater? -- Raderick 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am taking the google groups source out. I wish to remind a certain someone of something he said:
It has already been shown that according to Wikipedia policy, a Usenet post is NOT a suitable source for a Wikipedia article. You might want to attempt illustrating a different point, because your pen has run dry. - Chadbryant 13:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC) TruthCrusader 07:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Any chance of coming to a resolution on this? Tyrenius 23:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I take that as a "no" then. Tyrenius 00:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
If a legit source can be found for the results than fine. In the past on Wikipedia, Google posts have NOT be allowed as sources of information even as an external link. Only Google post counts have been permitted. I will ignore the personal attack made by Mr. Bryant. TruthCrusader 15:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Please follow VERIFY and also NPA. Failure to do so is a violation of policy and can result in the user being blocked. Tyrenius 23:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a dispute over this external link. Kindly quote the exact part of policy/guidelines that supports your view (with ref to appropriate policy page). Tip: WP:EL might help. Remember this link is not being used as a source. No comments required: put them in another part of this page. Please don't sign the quotes, as they're not personal opinions - they're just quotes from policy. Thank you.
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources. TruthCrusader 06:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
End of external links policy quotes Tyrenius 05:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Chad, I wonder if you have an explanation for the fact that Chad Bryant is amending the posting guide on rec.sport.pro-wrestling. [1] Tyrenius 16:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Because that site is the disputed external link and you seem to be involved with it directly. Tyrenius 10:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, it was 21 minutes before your post. Tyrenius 11:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You're posting on rec.sport.pro-wrestling, which is the external link you are arguing for, so that is relevant. Tyrenius 21:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making a point. I'm just trying to clarify if there is a point or not. Tyrenius 00:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The links prove that mr.Bryant is indeed, the owner of the 'semi official' rspw website and as such, under Wikipedia policy, it should not be listed as an external link on the rapw entry. TruthCrusader 06:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for further information on this guideline.) 3. A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link. This is from Wikipedia:EL Official Policy TruthCrusader 19:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The article should have been reverted to the last non-"DickWitham" version before being protected. - Chadbryant 22:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
As it is not normal to link to blog, perhaps, Chad, you could make your case, as concisely as possible, stating:
Tyrenius 11:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
As it is not normal to link to archived Usenet posts, perhaps, Chad, you could make your case, as concisely as possible, stating:
Tyrenius 02:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That seems like a good argument to me. Now let's hang on and see if there is any response to this. Tyrenius 03:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought the TV tapings moved from Orlando to Atlanta long before 2000 at Center Stage Theater? -- Raderick 07:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)