Talk:OUTeverywhere: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:55, 12 July 2006

Gaydar (remove)

Why keep reverting to the Gaydar website link? This website is only one of a possible list of slightly similar websites, but is very different in ethos. It seems like a blatant attempt at advertising by Gaydar to have the link there. It doesn't add anything of value to the article. [Unsigned]

It is being reverted primarily because you keep deleting it without explanation. It is always helpful to add a reason when you make an edit.

I think it is a helpful link. It is not a link to the Gaydar site, but to the article. Its presence does not make any comment about similarities or differences, but invites the reader to compare two related subjects for themselves. David L Rattigan 21:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Yes. They are the same thing - so obviously that it doesn't seem worth discussing it. I'll happily merge the two myself later today if I get a moment. David L Rattigan 09:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. This article has the correct title, but I don't know if they have different information or which one is better, so your efforts will be greatly appreciated. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary sandbox here

Merged and tidied up

I merged the articles and cleaned things up. It still needs some sources. David L Rattigan 09:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks really good! Which statements need sources? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the statement about the founder and why he created the site needs a citation, and the membership stats etc. I don't dispute anything in the article, but it will need citations eventually. David L Rattigan 10:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks too much like an advert. Recent controversies on the site are not even touched upon.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.223.76 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately it's in the nature of an article like this that some of the more controversial aspects are not touched upon, as there is not much research to draw on, and original research is not permitted. David L Rattigan 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic

I see the article is now marked as potentially unencyclopedic. I what way is it unencyclopedic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corky1979 (talk • contribs)

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ==Advert==
-This looks too much like an advert. Recent controversies on the site are not even touched upon.
+This looks too much like an advert. Recent controversies on the site are not even touched upon.{{unsigned|86.132.223.76}}
 :Unfortunately it's in the nature of an article like this that some of the more controversial aspects are not touched upon, as there is not much research to draw on, and [[Wikipedia:Original research|original research]] is not permitted. [[User:David L Rattigan|David L Rattigan]] 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
-::What controversies? Like the fact I was banned from there for a year? Everyone was talking about that ;) -- [[User:AnemoneProjectors|AnemoneProjectors]] ([[User talk:AnemoneProjectors|talk]]) 21:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 == Unencyclopedic ==
-I see the article is now marked as potentially unencyclopedic. I what way is it unencyclopedic?
+I see the article is now marked as potentially unencyclopedic. I what way is it unencyclopedic? {{unsigned|Corky1979}}