User talk:Nofactzone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] G'day!

G'day there, Nofactzone, and welcome to Wikipedia! Good authors are always welcome on the project, and I hope you like the place and decide to stick around!

We've got a few pages you might find helpful, such as:

• Our "five pillars"
• The lowdown on editing
• A detailed tutorial
• Our house manual of style

It's all best summed up here: write from a neutral point of view, play nice with others, and don't let the rules get you down.

If you have any questions or need any help, my talkpage is always open for business, or you can see Wikipedia:Newcomers help page. Here's a tip to start you off: if you type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of any messages you leave on talkpages (like this one) Wikipedia will automatically insert your name and the current date and time after your message. Cool, eh? Happy editing!fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: NoFactZone link

Hi,

Sorry to be a bit late in my reply to your note -- I've not been on Wikipedia in a bit due to having a family member in the hospital (who is thankfully home and better than ever now). I'm not sure why your link was pulled, but the wording of WP:EL seems to allow one representative fansite link in a case where the subject of the article is the subject of many fansites, and nofactzone does seem to be the most active relevant fansite on Colbert. The more dicey part is that from what I've seen, currently almost all celebrity articles break the rule and add more than one. I'm not sure where I weigh in on the debate about one vs. many fansite links, but Nofactzone seems to have more content and more frequent updates, although both are well put together, well maintained, informative sites in my opinion, so I'd feel bad personally removing either.

In any case, I don't think there's any conflict between Wikipedia policy and linking to Nofactzone and I've commented on the talk page to that effect. The part of WP:EL that directly mentions fansites should trump the note about blogs since the blog format seems coincidental in this case. Good work on your site, btw. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 03:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)