| Revision as of 14:02, 26 September 2008 editDragonfiend (talk | contribs)4,309 edits Undid revision 240994984 by 128.147.28.1 (talk)← Previous edit |
Revision as of 21:35, 26 September 2008 edit undo128.147.28.1 (talk) rm per WP:TALK: "Material not relevant to improving the article" - No examples given of how this is relevant to improving the article, should be posted at WP:SSP, not hereNext edit → |
| Line 24: |
Line 24: |
|
**All right. Since I know what to look for, I'll try and get a copy of the issue through my library. Once I do, I'll add back the source. ] (]) 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
**All right. Since I know what to look for, I'll try and get a copy of the issue through my library. Once I do, I'll add back the source. ] (]) 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
***No, don't add it back without discussion here first because this doesn't sound like a reputable source at all. --] (]) 05:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
***No, don't add it back without discussion here first because this doesn't sound like a reputable source at all. --] (]) 05:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
== Buspar is a sockpuppet of Xuanwu == |
|
|
It looks clear that ], the principle editor of this article, is in fact a sockpuppet account for ]. Creating articles about your work is a no-no here. You wrote the original one and you just switched usernames to write this one. ] says he "Started this ] page and have fleshed it out with time, making it a very comprehensive source page. Unfortunately, it was deleted." ] made his first edit ever to remake that article. ] and ] both have spent their time editing ] and ] and ]. Buspar's user page even says "I've been editing Wiki off and on with various user names since 2003!" ] (]) 04:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:Actually, the "evidence" that you provided for this in the sock puppet report hardly seems to be accurate—taking into consideration that ] that happened are related. How do you explain anonymous edits like (likely ones by "onethirtyeightdot")? Also, I'd suggest trying to keep the discussion in one spot so that we can avoid confusion in the future. ] (]) 01:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually, if you want to "suggest trying to keep the discussion in one spot," why are you posting a reply to a two-week old comment here? ] (]) 01:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Didn't notice. Also, please ]. We're not here to make pointed remarks. ] (]) 01:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
I'm not sure what the original version of this article looked like, since I didn't even know there was an original version. However, this one has 3 secondary references, which would seem to meet the WP:WEB criteria for notability. Also, several of the reasons given in the AfD mentioned in the speedy nomination (VANITY, NPOV, NOR, COPYVIO, AB) no longer apply. So a speedy isn't appropriate. Buspar (talk) 04:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It comes from OO's Comixpedia page, where it's listed as a reference. I got in touch with the person who added it and according to them Tech News was a newspaper/magazine in Massachusetts aimed at the 20-something crowd. It printed a series of articles reviewing webcomics, including OO, back in 2002. They say it ceased publishing in 2003 or so, which is probably why you don't have them in your library. I can ask them for a PDF of the article and email it to you if you want. Since I've now verified where it comes from, I'll add it back. Buspar (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
