The rules of Wikipedia change with too much frequency. I originally justified the inclusion of Tron Sector with the rule that one fansite was allowed, if it was of note. However, that qualifier has since vanished. What point are rules if they are tossed aside arbitrarily?

There are two ways I can see justifying the websites inclusion under the current rules. One is by popular vote. There is a vote running on the Tron talk page. The consensus is currently 2 vs 2. The other way is to show that the Sector is recognized in a official capacity. And isn't it basically the official website of the Tron comic? We don't have any other website and we list this one in the comic. But I've avoided this argument as it displays a lack of neutrality, which would call into question my opinions on any Tron related subject. Therefore I choose to not appeal to my position on Wikipedia itself, and instead remain anonymous.

I remember that there was a news bit about the website and it's recognition by the comic, but I couldn't figure out how to access archived news. If I could provide a source, say a news bit on the front page, then the Sector is justified by Wikipedias most stringent guidelines.
order abortion pill abortion pill buy online where to buy abortion pill

lurkinghorror Wrote:I remember that there was a news bit about the website and it's recognition by the comic, but I couldn't figure out how to access archived news. If I could provide a source, say a news bit on the front page, then the Sector is justified by Wikipedias most stringent guidelines.

If you can use that as ammunition to back up your argument, then I'm only too happy to provide.

http://www.tron-sector.com/news/view.aspx?id=540

My two cents about it:
The real problem is, if things started under the aspect of free speech and thoughts, but after a while, when a lot of users started to get binded to it, someone starts to take over the 'control' through the use of hidden rulements and stuff. People don't get it at the begin, and when it is too late a lot have to think throguh it, if they want to drop it or not (but often they have no option to do so).
In the case of wikipedia it is much more critical, as it was built under the aspect to give informations about everything, to educate and people did get used to it and trust it. But how trustable could something like this be, if such things happen as described in this thread? It just shows up that we always should keep in mind not to take every information as it is. Always know both side of the story. Bad that we have to be so sceptic in an era of information.order abortion pill morning after pill price where to buy abortion pill