Wo o ty Woot? contribs 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC) ![]() I don't think we're supposed to use images to circumvent the need for reliable sources or verification.Anyone interested in re/b/oot should check dramatica or wikichan. As for sources the image already used in 4chan#Anonymity should be fine to verify the use of the term 're/b/oot' as official. Didn't happen? Having Cotton-Eyed Joe stuck in my head the last few weeks begs to differ, unless you are refering to the 'banning the mods' bit which I assume is just rumour.No, you shouldn't mention things that didn't happen. Wo o ty Woot? contribs 20:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Similarly, I can't add "so I herd that Tirus lieks Mudkips" to the Mudkip article because no reliable source has said so. If nobody has reported on the re/b/oot, we can't talk about it. ![]() Guest 08:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Wooty, would you do the honors, (simply because i dont know how to report speculation.) Tirus 14:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC) We do not report speculation, "Guest", we are an encyclopedia, a collection of what other people say, not a gossip column or a newspaper. Part of the function of Wikipedia is to report on things very sources, sure, but obviously you both heard it somewhere just label it as speculation. ![]() Just label it as heresay / temporary news. Wo o ty Woot? contribs 19:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Think we should metion anything about moot taking /b/ back over and banning the mods? Tirus 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Not unless we have sources.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |