User talk:130.91.118.250

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. Please stop spamming articles with links to www.hirhome.com. Factual sources are welcome; opinion sites, in general, are not useful encyclopedic soures. Thank you. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe jpgordon had a point

I noticed --jpgordon was rather rude to you, calling your contribution "spam" and deleted your contribution on CIA:

Did the National Security Act of 1947 destroy freedom of the press? HIR

I will keep this reference deleted, because I don't think it belongs on the CIA page, maybe the National Security Act page.

Good luck with people like jpgordon.Travb 03:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back, maybe jpgordon had a point, looking over all of your edits, I can see why jpgordon would consider your contributions spam. Attempt adding more than external links to a blog http://www.hirhome.com/. Instead add real, verifiable, sourced, content to the articles. Blogs are not the best sources of info. There is some wikipedia policy on this, but I don't want to try and dig it up, for an anon who may never come back anyway.Travb 03:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Um

On what planet is a Historical and Investigative Research site that gives footnoted factual documentation for every claim a 'blog'? If anything, the material on HIR is about as "real, verifiable" and "sourced" as you can get. More so than newspapers, who don't provide any footnotes for their claims. Just because the facts that are documented on the site are not usually analysed in the same way should not discount them from being known. Wikipedia allows the external links section of topics to have many viewpoints that are not necessarily of the majority, as long as those links are not so numerous as to overshadow those of the mainstream. Ryan4 05:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think it qualifies as a "blog". But the site is One Person's Opinion. My reaction was not as much to the blogitude or lack thereof, but rather to the editor's inserting around two dozen links to the same site (hence my use of the term "spamming") and then following some of the links and seeing that these were pure opinion pieces, whether or not they were footnoted and sourced: what that site is is Francisco Gil-White's personal conclusions about events. Rather than evaluate each of the links, I assumed that they were all the same sort of thing; please feel free to go back to all of the anon's edits and replace the links if you think they are appropriate (though you might want to annotate the links as being to opinion pieces.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks very much for the clarification. Ryan4 16:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)