User talk:Aww40

WIT
http://www.cg.tuwien.ac.at/%7Ewp/videa-paper.html) is not a Reliable Source. Much as I'd like to see the content included, until there is a reliable source it cannot be. Please discuss this on Talk:Wessex Institute of Technology - where you will see there is extensive discussion - and do not get into an edit war, lest you be blocked from posting at wikipedia

The reason it is not an RS is that it is a personal page on the university's servers, and has no corporate backing. See RS --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you were warned. I've taken the matter to the Wikipedia:Administrators's_noticeboard/Incidents. Your noble intent does not overcome wikipedia policy on reliable sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your edit again. If you re-insert it, you will be blocked.  Such contentious material needs a reliable source, and such a self-published webpage is certainly not one. Black Kite 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not that we do not want the information in the article, merely that we insist on a reliable source for the information. I do wish you'd stop misrepresenting our position and wise up. Meanwhile, expect the ban hammer to fall shortly. Meanwhile if you think this sort of thing is restricted to the likes of WIT and is not a very much wider problem then you;re niaive in the extreme. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Hi Aww40, I am sorry you were blocked for adding the information concerning WIT. Please understand that we have no good way of distinguishing correct and false information, and so we have to do the second best thing: We distinguish properly published and not properly published information. The sources you were using were self-published, so they cannot be used to add potentially defamatory information.

I wouldn't be surprised if the affair had been reported in the press at the time. Unfortunately I cannot find anything online. If you find mainstream press coverage, or even a book that mentions the incident, then that would work as a source.

When there is a conflict about an article such as the one you found yourself in, you are supposed to discuss on talk pages such as this one. I am explaining this because I guess you were not aware of that. I guess that basically you were blocked because you missed the fact that you had messages on this talk page that were trying to start such a discussion. I am sure that if you demonstrate that you have found your talk page and we can expect you not to add the information again without discussion, you will be unblocked almost immediately. Hans Adler 15:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)