Caraski
I have reverted your recent additions to the WFG article, as it was unsourced. Given the hotbed of propaganda, both pro and con, that the article has attracted, it's important that any such material be well-sourced. Specific problems with your edit's references were:
- The first reference was blank
- The second reference (a law firm) did not link to the alleged case information, and my cursory examination did not turn up such information
- The third reference, as a personal website, does not constitute a reliable source.
Properly sourced, there's no reason this content can't be included in the article -- but proper sourcing (newspapers and the like) is paramount. — Lomn 03:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
User page
editHi Caraski, and thank you for your recent findings about WFG! I wanted to have a look at your user page an I am surprised you don't have one, even though you have been on Wikipedia for a long time. Not having a user page makes your name appear in red in talks, which is just like most vandals appear. Actually, it's stupid, but having a user page would make you appear much more credible in talks. Cheers, Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)