User talk:O0I1E3S5

What are you staring at?

Google books

Google books can be used as a source. It is used in literaly hundreds of thousands of articles. Don't make up your own policy.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds? Thousands? Give me one example. O0I1E3S5 (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out today's featured article John Lennon. (FA's are the highest quality wise in wikipedia). See how many references point to google books. It is particularly weird when you are claiming that gbooks cannot be used a source. In fact books.google.com ranks near the top of the references used in wikipedia articles. --Sodabottle (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out. There is no consensus yet. The biggest drawback of Google Books is they change links without warning and frequently. Also, limited and snippet views lose context.O0I1E3S5 (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop misrepresenting the RFC. It is a technical discussion about adding links to specific pages of Gbooks in "footnotes". It is not about using Gbooks as reliable sources--Sodabottle (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also check this out. If you can understand, the title of the discussion is crystal clear, mate...O0I1E3S5 (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are linking to the same discussion and it is clearly saying that it is about "linking" to google books (whether we should be promoting gbooks or not), not using them as a source. Man we can use gbooks as source, infact we are encouraged to provide links to the books we use online. either be it archive.org or gbooks. The book i am using is Sir Henry Miers Elliot's The history of India, as told by its own historians: the Muhammadan period; which is one of the most authoritative compilations of original accounts of Islamic historians of India.--Sodabottle (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]