I get this feeling like we’ve arrived. 
Not once, but twice! The two links at the bottom go to two different threads. 
I just hope it isn’t taken down by the literal deletionists who won’t recognize that having an expert talk about something is quite useful. It is technically linking to a forum–something they consider a no-no.
What I find funny is I recently looked up that topic, and didn’t notice the reference.
Nope, gone now. From the history page:
* (cur) (prev) 06:20, 13 October 2009 72.69.141.233 (talk) (3,504 bytes) (→References: removed discussion board references) (undo)Well drat.
Still, I can see why they would frown on citing a message board…
Because as much as we’d like to consider ourselves experts on everything under the sun, when you come right down to it we’re still just a bunch of damn message board fools who won’t go outside and play.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, people who say they consider themselves the hippest, smartest people on the planet generally are not. $14.95 a year does not an expert make.
Yes, I’m crabby this morning. Why?
Fame how fleeting
Rather ironic, as the cited reference at http://chinoiserie.atspace.com was written as a direct result of the [post=7481217]SDMB discussion[/post].
At the risk of appearing immodest, my Staff Report on the death of Lupé Vélez was cited as an external reference in the Wikipedia page on the actress.
I wondered what the whoop was. There’s cites to Cecil and the Staff Reports all over the place on Wikipedia. Then I see it’s the board. Oh, that (was) interesting.
A search shows a link in the following too:
I always get a kick out of checking the references on Wikipedia. Often the link to the reference no longer works.
Appearing immodest? Oh, I hardly think there’s any fear of that…