User talk:82.182.75.145

Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see how the links might be considered reliable under your definition of reliable sources, but Wikipedia has a different take. reliable sources at Wikipedia are sources that are essentially well-known and/or well-respected. A better discussion of reliable sources can be found at WP:RS, and includes examples of what is and what isn't considered a reliable source. Blogs or personal websites, for example, are rarely considered reliable sources. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, then please tell me which links or sections in the article that are not considered reliable under Wikipedia standards and I'll try to fix them. The only I can see that you may find unreliable is "The project has been in development since 2001 and the site came online in May 2003, but it was not until June 2005 that it was announced to a broader audience."

Thanks, //Henrik Sjostrand —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.182.75.145 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out WP:V, Wikipedia's verifiability policy. In a nutshell, the policy states:


 * The problem isn't the wording of the article, it's that none of the content is cited from a reliable source. If a reliable source says The project has been in development since 2001 and the site came online in May 2003, but it was not until June 2005 that it was announced to a broader audience.", then there's nothing wrong with including that in the article, it would just need to be cited. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)