GreenTeaz

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Owlmonkey (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I've left a response for you there.

I'm curious why you think cityfile is a reliable source, when they don't list their sources or journalistic standards. Is it that certain articles are well written or seem to be unbiased? I'll give you that. But do you think they really meet WP:SOURCES guidelines? If so, why? - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. In adding cityfile links I've been trying to keep in mind that "the appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." So using that, I've been careful to only include links that meet source guidelines, especially in regards to the neutrality policy. Also, I think at this point this site has been written about and linked to in enough other publications to consider it "mainstream."

I agree that it is not a "fringe" source, but it is also generally used for articles about living persons, and I don't think it meets those higher standards. Also read this section of a related guideline Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Sources. From that you'll find we should avoid entirely any questionable or contested sources; any sources with unverifiable claims; gossip; rumors; personal opinion, etc. Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources are defined as "those with a poor reputation for fact-checking." but cityfile has no stated guidelines concerning fact-checking, seems fine with adding op-ed style language and commentary, and we have no idea what they add that is their own opinion or is based on sources that meet our guidelines. - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)