On 3 Jul 2007 at 16:02:48 -0400, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
But the article *did* mention Encyclopedia Dramatica by name, which seems to be a venal sin according to you guys.
Dan, I'm no longer responding to arguments based on straw man policies; why would you imagine I would take a straw man argument seriously?
On 3 Jul 2007 at 15:26:17 -0500, "Slim Virgin" slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
That's another one of the strawman arguments, Dan. ~~~~
Do you guys complete one another's sentences, too?
I've seen plenty of straw men coming from your camp too, like the constant mentions of the so-called "attack sites" not being "reliable sources", something that's irrelevant when the link in question is being done outside article space (like the vast majority of the links that have been made an issue), and arguably untrue in the handful of cases where the link actually was in article space (like the one that triggered this particular thread, where the link was used as a source for something that actually occurred in such a site, and was relevant to a notable controversy being covered in an article). In non- article linking, WP:RS is irrelevant, and in article linking it's a content dispute which isn't helped by one side threatening to block people on the other side.