Please stop adding a link to your discussion forum. It is not a reliable source. If you think there is a good reason for the link then address the matter on the article talk page. Claiming that it is 'for balance' doesn't wash - the forum consists of individual's views and there is no basis for considering that these views are necessarily balanced. TerriersFan (talk) 00:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TerriersFan, I admit I am new-ish to Wiki and I am not certain of the protocol. I just find it concerning that the only external link allowed is to the site run by the official suspects in the case.... The views on the forum are balanced in the sense that anyone can post there without having their views deleted, unlike the carefully vetted official site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sad Git (talk • contribs)
The consensus, hitherto, is that the official site should be there. If you think that it shouldn't be, or that its presence lacks balance, then raise the matter on the talk page and see if you get support. TerriersFan (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so "mccannfiles" isn't allowed either. I'm not sure why an archive of articles, gerry's blogs, newspaper links and videos is unacceptable, but you win (again). It was worth a try... Sad Git (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Your edit summaries must be NPOV as much as possible. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for seriously violating our WP:BLP policy. (1 == 2)Until 01:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian, do you happen to know why the "mccannfiles" link I added was deleted? I don't understand words like "NPOV" and "WPBLP". Sad Git (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about the mccannfiles link but "NPOV" means Neutral point of view which is a central Wikipedia policy. "WPBLP" means a biography of a living person which has a policy that says basically any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source should be immediately removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
