Talk:Dan McDowell

Untitled
I don't see a real need to delete this article as of yet. Sure, the author(s) are having some fun while they write it, but I would suggest giving the article some time before deleting it. The subject of the article is aware of it and its content and thinks it is funny. Beyond that, Dan doesn't really care if it does get deleted or not, but as other less note worthy people do have entries at this site, there is no reason Dan shouldn't. Furthermore, if you delete this article, odds are another will replace it quickly and we'll all be right back where we are.

So don't delete it, just encourage the author(s) to stick to the facts and clean it up a bit.

Note that this is a copy of this post from the related article on Bob Sturm. Not being a puppet, it's just that the logic is EXACTLY the same.

Andrew


 * The Verifiability policy states that Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

The article for Reliable_sources says ''A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event. It could be an official report, an original letter, a media account by a journalist who actually observed the event, or an autobiography. Statistics compiled by an authoritative agency are considered primary sources. In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability''

With these policies in mind, the unreferenced quotes and events must be removed. JohnM4402 03:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, I'd like to share a comment MartinRe made on my talk page. "As to using audio archives as a source, I would agree that they are a verifiable source (although dates would be required, just like references to publications on paper), however, I would not regarded them as a reliable source, and would perfer secondary sources, especially when referring to living people, as per WP:BLP. Also, it should be noted that analysis of the primary source (i.e. the radio program) rather than direct reporting, would be classed as original research, which is not accepted at wikipedia. Regards, MartinRe" JohnM4402 03:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good edits Motor... it looks a lot better. JohnM4402 21:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan McDowell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090209055128/http://theticket.com/Shows/TheMusers/tabid/418/Default.aspx to http://www.theticket.com/Shows/TheMusers/tabid/418/Default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)