User talk:Thetruthdoctor

From Talk:Rec.sport.pro-wrestling/Workshop
I'm an independent third party and I have another take on these links. rspw.org is a site who's owner has been verified. The owner happens to be a moderator on rec.sport.pro-wrestling.moderated. However, we should all keep in mind that this is not an article about rec.sport.pro-wrestling.moderated. It is an article about rec.sport.pro-wrestling proper. On rspw.org there are a few links to archived posts on Google Groups. These posts may have minor historical interest to some, but add very little to the enhancement of this article.

rspw.cjb.net is a site who's owner has not been verified. We have no idea who has written this information. If one were to do independent research, they would most likely find that most of the information on appears to be lifted directly from posts archived on Google Groups. However, without extensive research one cannot be sure whether it retains the complete accuracy of the source information. This site adds little or nothing to the enhancement of this article.

In my opinion rspw.org is a more trustworthy link than rspw.cjb.net because it uses links to original posts on Google Groups instead of presenting unsourced reasearch, most likely gathered from Google, as original material. However, neither link adds anything but fluff to the article and IMO, both links should be deleted immediately and not included in the final product. --Thetruthdoctor 17:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are definitely not an independent third party. You are definitely a sockpuppet of another account. If your main account is valid, I suggest you use that account to edit instead, as it has more established contributions, and therefore your words would carry more weight. If you main account is blocked from editing Wikipedia, you should not be editing. Either way, I am blocking your account because you are using a sockpuppet account to give the illusion of consensus. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record; I'm not aware I had made another account previous to this one. Regardless, I feel my points were valid and by no means am I attempting to say that there is a concensus on the matter. I am simply offering a differing point of view. --Thetruthdoctor 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)