Mianchen

January 2011

I see you have removed a valid reference I inserted to the Mortgage loan article, claiming it "is not a reference at all!". I'm afraid you are mistaken about that, and I have restored it. Per WP:BRD: you were Bold, I have Reverted it, and now it is time to Discuss your reasons for removing it. Please do not remove it again without discussion, either here or at the article's talk page. Whichever works best for you. Thank you :> Doc talk 22:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

user:mianchen Well, if I set up a website and add that exact sentence from mortgageloan.com, would you quote it as a reference? Stating a well know fact on a website doesn't make it a reference, especially when it's a commercial site built with the main purpose is to make profit from visitors. What would the readers see when they go and check out the 'reference' you added? One sentence of 'relevant' info and lots of ads...In my humble opinion, we'd either remove it, or quote it from a more credible source. It'll be interesting to find out your relationship with the site in question, if you insist that these kind of sites are where Wikipedia should source it's information from.

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you. It would not do me any damage whatsoever whether this link is there or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mianchen (talk • contribs) 16:54, January 30, 2011

So why did you remove it again, then?[1] Start talking. I'm afraid you do not understand the difference between links with advertising and links without it. If you think this link is not valid, I've got a whole bunch more to show you. Do you think (e.g.) Time (magazine) is an appropriate source? It is, and guess what: they advertise. If you think there is "taking advantage of wiki page"; I've got some news for you. It's called "syndicated content". I know a lot about the rules of wikipedia, and what is and what isn't a reliable source. More than you from your extremely recent and short editing history, I'd wager. Would you like to take this to another level? I'd be more than happy to. Do not remove this again without discussion on the article's talk page. You want to go beyond that? Not a problem. Doc talk 11:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Mianchen :More experience does not guarantee non-bias. I've no interest to waste my time, however your above lines did not make much logical sense. Are you trying to intimidate me? LOL. I can see why you have such an disproportional reaction. Anyway, as I said before, you have it, enjoy yourself.

You are seriously not assuming good faith, one of the important guidelines here at Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you're insinuating; but you have said you wouldn't delete it without discussion, and then you did anyway. Bring it up on the talk page if you feel the source is inadequate. I'm not trying to "intimidate" you: I'm telling you that I know how things work around here a lot better than you do. See WP:ELNO, WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKSPAM, to start. You don't even have 30 edits under this account, whereas I have over 6,000 and have been here for three years. Does that make "logical sense"? Good day to you. And when you finish a post, type four tildes (~~~~), and it will sign it for you. Cheers :> Doc talk 12:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Nufsay, have fun with your virtual ego Mianchen (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)