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 f 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