Other voices: Patricia Godes: ‘I remember the acting of Alan Vega as one of the best. It was a mixture of spoken word with music pre-recorded, while passing around pictures of their presentations, very abstract and very rubbish, among which were inverted crosses. It said this much detail. ” Rafa Cervera: ‘Following the program dedicated to John Cale’s when I realized that it was Paloma that erecting a monument. For the occasion, had bought the film rights to see her at that time was a miracle: ‘Andy Warhol’s Exploding Plastic Inevitable’ by Ronald Nameth (a short 22 minutes filmed in 1966). Propose to include in this section of the policy WP: EE with section 8 would be the following:
8.No is link to forums, and that anyone has access to these and can say false
Saludos David0811 (I help) 02:10 23 December 2008 (UTC)
And if these are going, or blogs. The truth is that it is included, but not so special about this. Netito777 02:12 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Very supportive only be giving my opinion, an improvement to the editor. Saloca your comments 02:14 23 December 2008 (UTC)
What you seem to move to point 3:
Are not acceptable autopublicadas links to websites, fanzines, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, discussion forums, among others, except those written by a recognized authority, or those which are cited to verify information about themselves.
I have based a little on an existing proposal for changes in the policy of verifiability, but details as to unreliable sources. Saludos ) wikisilki iklisikiw 02:33 23 December 2008 (UTC)
So much for avoiding much discussion due to a misunderstanding as I had recently. Netito surely remember who told him. Well, I repeat: I feel very good idea. Yo! Do you forgot my ’03:21 23 December 2008 (UTC).
I agree with Wikisiliki.Saludos David0811 (I help) 20:47 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Too. We must wait to open the vote. Bucho / Disc. / Email 18:06 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, except the subject of blogs. In this regard, an observation: When you mention “written by a recognized authority” What do you mean exactly ‘at least in Peru, there are very serious blogs on politics, journalism, sociology and even films, which contain articles investigations and interpretations of recognized professionals (journalists, lawyers, psychologists, etc..) properly referenced and credible, which are far from personal blogs. (eg http://uterodemarita.com/ http://www.desdeeltercerpiso.com/, etc) from whom I obtained information to expand serious articles of various kinds) as well as scientists from other blogs http:// www.historiasdelaciencia.com (Spanish I think) and one other group of blogs belonging to media as El Comercio (Peru), which publishes articles and research as a blog comment to enrich the same items. In that sense could be Do not link to them ‘so far used the common sense and link to their sources and in other cases to them (for my serious, verifiable and reliable) blogs, but now is left in black and white referenced this forbidden, I think a front end to over half (blogs) are growing more and more acceptance and dissemination as they become more media and more reliable and more and more logs are no longer issues individuals. Salu2. The Mithen (talk) 20:58 26 December 2008 (UTC)
One exception would be precisely those people with some blogs reputation or experience on the topic covered. In these cases, to become valid sources questioned by some users mentioning WP: EE, just to prove the reputation of the author, showing or publishing information about its trajectory. But blogs, entry no. In general, blogs are personal autopublicaciones and can not be considered a reliable source, since any user can maintain a blog in order to support their views on wikipedia, sidelong violating WP: NFPs. Saludos ) wikisilki iklisikiw 21:19 26 December 2008 (UTC) PS: would be interesting to create a whitelist of trusted sites and blogs, as opposed to the blacklist.
MediaWiki: Spam-whitelist. Hey! Hey! Jarisleif! (Paal Hakkaa Pohja Poike!) 22:29 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The wording proposed by Wikisilki seems right … the truth is we can not afford to keep linking. Netito777 00:58 27 December 2008 (UTC)
We are very much against a world where Web 2.0 is making progress, dedicated sites, as well as many forums, blogs or provide specialized information, where dedicated or section. It has to be applied without a say not just the links. If one side can be a Self on the other hand are professionals in the field, taking a comprehensive and advanced conociento to treat some specific points.
It is important to understand that many of these professionals are involved in Wikipedia, by the fact, that their texts or works, lose interest in the material they taken time to investigate and / or develop, so they prefer to build a custom site. nabbage (talk) 17:24 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Nabbage, these sites are acceptable or not depending on whether it is the professionalism, experience or authority on the subject of their authors may be established, as with any other source in wikipedia, is a question of verifiability.