Revision as of 16:35, 3 August 2011 edit Cube lurker (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 11,007 edits m →Good editing deserves consideration: fix ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:20, 3 August 2011 edit undo ResidentAnthropologist (talk \| contribs) Pending changes reviewers 7,071 edits →Citing Usenet (1): inccorrect Next edit →
Line 815: :'''Comment by Arbitrators:''' :One does not Cite UseNet that is the rule. Let's look at the problems with this off the top of my head: :: ::The material is copyrighted and NYDN did not consent to it's posting, Thus it's copyright violation ::The Material maybe altered in between NYDN and usenet posting. This happens commonly though did not happen in this case. ::Usenet posting could have been completely made up for lulz. :Daily News is a poor source but we know there is editorial control so they dont get sued. Usenet doesn't have any checks or balances. The fact is there are better sources that could have been used as you have amply proves that. [[User:ResidentAnthropologist\|The Resident Anthropologist]] <small>[[User_talk:ResidentAnthropologist\|(talk)]]•([[Special:Contributions/ResidentAnthropologist\|contribs]])</small> 18:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC) :'''Comment by parties:''' ::

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Workshop: Difference between revisions