Talk:Andrew Levy/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Andrew Levy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrew Levy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

Hi @Rublamb: As user generated and self-published sources, celebrity wikis wouldn't be acceptable as reliable sources, particular for a biography of a living person. These exist mostly for SEO and ad revenue, with no meaningful fact checking or editorial review. Many of them copy from each other (or Wikipedia). For example, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 258#informationcradle.com. I've left the claims for now, but any ones that can't be attributed to a truly reliable source should be removed. Politanvm ^talk 06:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the link to the notice board. I had wondered, but since InformationCradle is not a wiki (it is not user generated, but has editorial staff), has no advertising, and is also not on the WP:RSPSOURCES list, it appeared to be okay to use. It is interesting to note that is does include some original research--content that is only available from public records that are not allowable sources for Wikipedia. If InfomationCrable is considered an unreliable source because of copyright violations, it should be added to the RSPSources list, right? In any event, I didn't write this content, but was trying to find the needed sources. I found some reliable sources, so there is that...Rublamb (talk) 17:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Politanvm, I cited new sources (and new info in some cases) and deleted the rest. When I found a marriage announcement in the NYT, it ends up the info on wife and parents was for another person with the same name. That is what I get for being lazy and using InformationCrade. Thanks again for the heads up. Rublamb (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Rublamb - the new sources look better at first glance. There are so many similar sites that are unambiguously unreliable blogs or wikis that posting every one to RSP would be overkill. When I tried to list Prabook at RSP, it was basically shut down as being unnecessary (yet people keep on using it). These sites basically just copy and paste or scrape information and repost it with egregious SEO. It's almost an entire industry. The pages are covered with ads, including popover ads whenever you click on a link on the page, so they're not showing for you, you must have a great ad blocker. Anyway, thanks for understanding and for pulling in more reliable sources! Best, Politanvm ^talk 22:12, 27 May 2022 (UTC)