"

 Thank you 
Thank you for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Resources#Unreliable_resources. In light of this could you please notify User talk:Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Is_it_appropriate_to_add_unsourced_information_to_articles_on_BLPs_.3F about this? Thank you for your time,  '''  
It looks like the question about IMDb was already clarified in that discussion. I think it's overkill to stir it up again. But the next time there is a questionable use of IMDb, pointing to the Film Resource page should do the trick.  — (talk) 

Gyan Publishing and circular refs
I'm reinventing the wheel you discovered: WP:RSN#""Faith & philosophy of Hinduism"".     talk   
Yikes. Those pseudo sources are back again. I knew I should have started WP:List of Circular References way back then. Just never got around to it (and I had some disagreement from other editors at that time). What do you think, Will? Would this be a good idea? — (talk) 
Another pseudo-source I see used often are some books called something like the ""Webster Book of quotations on Politics"" (but that's not it), which are issued on a variety of topics. They cite their source as Wikipedia, but they abbreviate it ""WP"" and many editors don't catch that.  I think there's merit in a central list. It wouldn't fluctuate much - books aren't going to be re-issued to address the problem, though some websites might fix it. The only gray area I see are those sources which cite Wikipedia, where it's possible to exclude the WP-sourced content and still use the other parts. I suppose that a search of the RSN archives and of pages that link to WP:CIRCULAR would find most instances that have been discussed. This problem is only going to get worse as Wikipedia continues to grow and as publishers grow more desperate for profit in a dwindling market.     talk   
I agree. The problem will only get worse and, over time, it becomes more difficult to parse the article histories to determine if/when the article was copied. And rather than search through the growing mountain of archives, it would be nice to be able to quickly direct an editor to a previous discussion  especially in cases like ISHA and Gyan which will obviously pop up again. I think what would work is a page with a table format which lists the title, the publisher, a link to the RSN archived discussion, and a Notes column which discuss those 'gray areas""  whether the entire source is copied or particular chapters/sections. I'll try to work something up over the weekend and then ask for your input.  — (talk) 
That sounds like a good plan.     talk   

 AfD nomination of Sociological Space 
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sociological Space, has been listed for deletion.  If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.  Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. SHOOS''' 
I declined the speedy on this, but seconded the PROD. I'll leave the same opinion on the AFD. Thanks for the note.  — [[User:CactusWriter|Cactus