Talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sources

You can't use Wikipedia pages as sources, as they are inherently unreliable, and if you really do insist on doing such a thing you should at least use oldids. The Wikipedia Signpost isn't really notable or relevant, so I'm unsure why that is mentioned. On the whole you have enough RS that you should really avoid citing Wikipdia itself, which is both unreliable and biased in the matter. naerii 16:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also, as I can't speak German and therefore can't verify this, does that source back up the claim that "there was a strong community antipathy to conflicted editing"? naerii 16:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a problem relating the given source for "When Centiare's owner opted to pull the plug on the site, Kohs negotiated a transfer of the entire contents of Centiare.com to MyWikiBiz.com" to that statement. I just get the first paragraph of the source. Did the link expire? I'm pretty sure we can't use sources where we have to pay to read the relevant part. --RexxS (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no rule against sources like that. The best sources for many topics are only available offline. That said, I can access the source in question, and it doesn't seem to say anything supporting that statement you mention. I'll have to ask Neil where he came up with the fact. Zagalejo^^^ 19:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering where I read a prohibition on paid-for sites and realised afterwards it was in external links - which does indeed specifically allow such sites as an "inline reference". Apologies if I muddied the waters but that source article didn't look as if it was going to support the sentence I quoted and I couldn't read it find out. --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I've left a message at Neil's talk page, so hopefully we can get things straightened out. Zagalejo^^^ 23:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There's a reference link to G4TV, but to the blog post (sort of an advance notice abstract) and not to the actual show. Wouldn't it make more sense to link to the actual show where the Mywikibiz owner appears? Here's the link: (www.g4tv.com/pile_player.aspx?video_key=14996). I'm not making the change myself, since there appeared to have been some controversy over whether to even have this source in the article. -- G4 Fan (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Old article milestones, afds, etc

Can some kind admin pull all that out of whatever the old deleted revisions are, if any? rootology (T) 02:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Neıl ☄ 08:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Relevant

How is:

Some articles on MyWikiBiz have multiple blocks of Google Adsense advertising. For example, the article on John McCain has a Google ad banner, followed by an inline frame of the official John McCain website, followed by newsfeed blurbs, followed by more Google ads.

Even relevant?

Pick ONE link from MyWikiBiz, and then state that some of these articles have blocks of advertising? Gee that IS important. o.O Jacina (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bad editing and figuring things out

Please don't remove discussions on this talk page that seem like personal quarrels or vendettas or "whatever". This article may still be a train wreck, but let's not go to the usual suspects or create new ones in editing this article. We need to get this right. Flowanda | Talk 05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. We do need to look at the sourcing. It is important in asserting its notability that the sources are correct and relate to what they are claimed to support. Misusing things will not do much to convince skeptics (like myself). I'll be going through later and double checking the inline references. --Narson ~ Talk • 08:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Red link to Centiare.com

There is a red link to Centiare.com in the article. Do we think that ought to be de-linked? -- Thekohser 19:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, one needed edit just led to another. We would like to think that We have spoken, but alas... Flowanda | Talk 01:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs work

Much "history" is actually in the lead paragraph. The only detailed content, seems to end in 2006. That seems backward to me.Pickle23 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)