Jimmy Wales wrote:
I appreciate your concerns, but I think the explanation I gave on the talk page in response to your inquiry was adequate, and I think that this is the sort of explanation that ought to be always adequate everywhere and for everyone in cases of this type.
Your explanation of why you thought the Ogrish link was unreliable was "It sounds very much inherently unreliable to me. It is a shock site. It has been victimized by hoaxes in the past."
The first sentence is just a repetition of your opinion that it's unreliable, the second is a fact that appears well supported on the [[Ogrish.com]] page but doesn't necessarily mean it's unreliable (much like how "being a blog" doesn't necessarily mean a source is unreliable), and the third is unsupported by any examples either directly from you or on [[Ogrish.com]] itself. I'm sorry, but IMO this is still really wishy-washy.
It seems to me like you may be trying to use policies and guidelines to support a decision already made for other unrelated reasons. Are you actually removing this link on some sort of "human decency" grounds, as I recall you've done in other cases in the past?