On 7/9/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 17:27:44 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
If WR links were only deleted for not being reliable sources, we wouldn't be *having* this fuss. Most of the questionable deletions of WR and
similar
links are under circumstances where reliable sources are irrelevant--talk pages, Wikipedia signpost, etc.
Why post a link to a site which engages in harassment and outing, if it's not even a reliable source? In what way is that not dickish?
Because different people have different interpretations of the phrase "reliable source". It is not dickery to disagree on what constitutes a reliable source; it is a content dispute. How the dispute is resolved, of course, may result in dickery from one or both sides.
Johnleemk