On 8 Jul 2007 at 00:01:47 -0700, "Steven Walling" steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
After reading all of this, I only have one question left...is the Register ever considered a reliable source per WP:Notability? Is there some way we can list it as being unsuitable for referencing?
Just get it declared an "attack site"... then there'll be a pack of baying hounds ready to bite anybody who dares try to link to it.
On 09/07/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 8 Jul 2007 at 00:01:47 -0700, "Steven Walling" steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
After reading all of this, I only have one question left...is the Register ever considered a reliable source per WP:Notability? Is there some way we can list it as being unsuitable for referencing?
Just get it declared an "attack site"... then there'll be a pack of baying hounds ready to bite anybody who dares try to link to it.
Once its in that category its "undeniable" that wikipedia-loving people should all hate it. It would be "unwikipedian" to think(crime) otherwise.
Gotta love centralised morality!
Peter
G'day Dan,
On 8 Jul 2007 at 00:01:47 -0700, "Steven Walling" steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
After reading all of this, I only have one question left...is the Register ever considered a reliable source per WP:Notability? Is there some way we can list it as being unsuitable for referencing?
Just get it declared an "attack site"... then there'll be a pack of baying hounds ready to bite anybody who dares try to link to it.
Okay,
1) You have a good point.
2) Your tenuous connections of any subject to this point have been humorous in the past.
3) Humorous, to a point.