User talk:BFGalbraith

Your edits on Getty Images
Hi, I've removed the section you added to this article, because it was based on non-reliable sources. Sources in wikipedia articles must fit our definition of reliable to be usable, especially when the information they support is negative. Your sources were an axe-grinding anti-Getty site, what appeared to be a personal website with commentary, and a forum post. None of these meet our guidelines for reliable sources, and they therefore cannot be used to support content in a Wikipedia article. If you want to include information about lawsuits, you'll need to cite it to a third-party, reliable source - a news report on the lawsuits, a magazine article on them, a journal article analyzing the lawsuits, something like that. Please don't re-add the section as you had it, with the unusable sourcing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This page at The Guardian newspaper would qualify as a reliable source. . Probably the most balanced review out there. Asteuartw (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact is that numerous people are getting harassed by Getty Images right now, and those were the most reliable sites out there on that topic. They are not actually axe grinding sites at all, and if you had looked a little closer you would know that.
 * Asteuartw, yep, an article by The Guardian would be a usable source! BfGalbraith, the "axe-grindy" site is a site created with the intention of talking about how bad Getty is. Now, Getty may or may not be bad, I don't know. But a site created with the sole purpose of promoting how bad they are? That's not a neutral source; that's a source with a very strong POV, and that means it's not a usable source for Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I told you so.