Talk:Swordbird: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Controversy |
Codemonkey (talk | contribs) reply |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
http://www.forumopolis.com/showthread.php?t=50596 |
http://www.forumopolis.com/showthread.php?t=50596 |
||
is the forum thread that inspired the "Controversy" section. I think that it is of note, and the section should be re-added. |
is the forum thread that inspired the "Controversy" section. I think that it is of note, and the section should be re-added. |
||
:Forums are not a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. And you're still not allowed to vandalize the page. As anyone can clearly see when looking through this page's history, a bunch of IPs have been inserting nonsense into the page, or even replacing the entire article with it, and it is pretty obvious you're part of said effort. I guess you really want that quote in, whether it is by vandalizing, or meat/sockpupetting, or blank-replacing, but I'm sorry, not going to happen. --[[User:Codemonkey|Codemonkey]] 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 20:37, 3 May 2007
A lot of trade created puffery here, I think. "There is no current motion picture of this work." is an unnecessary statement. All the reviews are unlinked and/or vague -"staff of Barnes & Noble". And why is Barnes & Noble's website linked? Aredbeardeddwarf 20:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Taken out the statement above and the Barnes and Noble link.Aredbeardeddwarf 22:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Controversy
http://www.forumopolis.com/showthread.php?t=50596 is the forum thread that inspired the "Controversy" section. I think that it is of note, and the section should be re-added.
- Forums are not a reliable source. And you're still not allowed to vandalize the page. As anyone can clearly see when looking through this page's history, a bunch of IPs have been inserting nonsense into the page, or even replacing the entire article with it, and it is pretty obvious you're part of said effort. I guess you really want that quote in, whether it is by vandalizing, or meat/sockpupetting, or blank-replacing, but I'm sorry, not going to happen. --Codemonkey 20:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)