User talk:Horseshoe123

Doctor Who assassination plot

Thanks, Bryony, that's getting there. I'm not going to edit it again since it seems I'm the focus of the debate now! MartinSFSA (talk)

Thanks! BryonyM (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EAbsinthe.com

Regarding your AfD nomination, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EAbsinthe.com:

When creating the deletion discussion page, please ensure you follow all 3 steps, specifically step 2.
There is no need to list the page on the AfD log multiple times (19 December and 21 December) unless it is being relisted due to no consensus after the 7-day discussion period expires. I'm not going to revert since your initial creation of the deletion discussion made it hard to see on the 19 December log. However, please be aware that someone may interpret this to be canvassing. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a question on WT:AFD as to whether or not this may be construed as canvassing. This is for my information only; I am assuming good faith on your part. I'm just letting you know as a courtesy since you are indirectly mentioned in my query. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I had no intention to canvas but I was unsuccessful (twice) at properly nominating the article for deletion. BryonyM (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absinthe

Please read WP:V and WP:RS and refrain from adding blogs as sources to articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is no other source for this information. Apart from doing a long haul on the TTB website that would probably take hours/days. In many cases, the blog links directly to the TTB website where it is available. If you think the blog link is inappropriate (and it was discussed earlier), then I suggest you also remove "citation needed," since I believe there is no other citation possible!

Generally I agree most of the recent changes you have made; but it still seems illogical to have preparation before production. BryonyM 11:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If the only source for the text is a non-reliable blog, it doesn't belong in the article. If TTB is a reliable source, it should be used. (I'm busy today-- please feel free to move production before preparation.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The TTB is completely unusable: try it yourself. https://www.ttbonline.gov/colasonline/publicSearchColasBasic.do It is like saying the Bible is a good source of information about God. Yes, lots of information there, but not in an easy to use format. If you are worried about spam or unreliable information in the absinthe article, you should look in more detail at the references: I estimate about 20 of the 97 references are to forums/information sites that are owned by commercial absinthe interests. There are about 10 links to articles written by journalists who have spent a few hours or days on articles that are often erroneous. Does Wikipedia really prefer that? BryonyM 15:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Not at all-- they all need to go. I've posted reliable sources in the Further reading section, and I will remove other unreliable sources as I find time. Also, wrt biomedical information, pls see WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe some of those new sources are very reliable. BryonyM 17:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

They are all peer review medical journal articles; what are your concerns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I get a chance, I'll start a section on the Discussion page. It's not really appropriate to discuss it in this kind of detail here. BryonyM 18:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)