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.
Bryan Derksen wrote:
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I deleted the link completely.
And, frankly, in a rather sloppy manner. You gave no edit summary and your explanation on the talk page consisted entirely of the acronyms "WP:RS, WP:NOR." Your subsequent response when I asked for elaboration was just a slightly more wordy version of the same thing, an assertion that this is an unreliable source without anything to actually back the assertion up.
This is a case where I don't care about the subject of the article and have no basis for an opinion of my own about the external link (I haven't even watched it), but if you'd been any other editor I would have simply reverted your change for lack of explanation. I know it's a hassle, but in the long run I think it's much easier on everyone if a sound argument is presented so others don't have to keep re-adding and re-removing this material. It looks like that's been done in the article's history at least once already.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l