The objection of it being a subscription site is of course wrong, but it seems a little more complicated:
Some or all of the links reverted were to a dead site. This is a different problem. I really do not see a how a link to a site that cannot be reached by anyone at all is a reference. The only way to go would be to find it in a old file somewhere--or to have made a permanent link by one of the available methods in the first place, or to have an equivalent print link.
This is one of the known hazards of using purely online references.
DGG
On 5/15/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/05/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
- People decide the actual way things are done doesn't suit them, and
never mind little details like blatantly contradicting the fundamental rules
- People read the version of a policy page written by one of the first
people, assume it's gospel and defend it to the hilt, just as if it's carefully thought out and robust instead of a quick hack
- Etc etc etc.
Oh, I left a pretty pointy message on both his talk page and that of the editor he reverted.
Reference stripping is unacceptable behaviour and attracts strong penalties for good reason.
Thanks. Would have done it myself, but I wanted a second opinion first - and being the main author of the article in question, I am wary of getting too involved lest I fall prey to [[WP:OWN]]. Never hurts if you can find other non-involved editors who agree with you. ;-)
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l