Cary Bass wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
# It does not take long for a pile of old newspapers to reach the
ceiling.
You've tested this? :-)
My wife wishes I hadn't so often.
Ec
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To
Carcharoth wrote:
And I
shudder to think of the duplicated effort in checking references. It
would be great if you could look through an article and see that 5
people you trusted had ticked off most of the references as
verified.
Hmm, in my experience the majority of finds of inaccuracy in
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In addition to that, we have great extra repositories for checking the
existence of a purported print source at amazon.com and also at abe.com
and alibris.com Amazon tends toward in-print titles, while abe.com
tends toward out-of-print titles, including very rare
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:27 AM, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
*However* perhaps we could create a tag,
coincidental with20{{fact}} something like {{verify?}} which would cross
over to a page like Verification Requests By Date. Any established
Wikipedia could take a request, do the lookup, and
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
sob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year
That is ridiculous category use.
Hey, someone thought it was useful ...
Once upon a time I
Bryan Derksen wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
sob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_deaths_by_year
That is ridiculous category use.
Hey, someone thought it
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Charles
Matthewscharles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
2009/7/30 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
sob
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Animal_births_by_year
Carcharoth wrote:
I think what some people want is more a way to take a category such as
Famous animals and its subcategories, and run a dynamic query that
returns a list of all the members of those categories sorted by dates
of birth and death. A dynamic version of a list. I know I'd love it
About Women on Wikipedia, I think famous is probably problematic, like
list of short women, is too much based on a judgement call.
And a list of all women on wikipedia would be too enormous.
However I would think no one would object to something like Women by
Nationality and then have a sub-cat
If you are actually doing this, I shall have to check your
contributions and revert every such removal. They are not convenience
links, as they are when there is a print version only. They are
perfectly good links, and meet policy--almost always, except in the
case of really esoteric sources,
I think David you have not understood at all what I said.
Please explain your objection in a manner highlighting what you think I
said, and why you would object to what I said.
Will
**
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
steps!
David my response was in *three* parts not one. You must consider all
three parts as one whole response, not each one as a seperate response.
Part 1 was solely dealing with items which have a subscription wall and
only live on the internet and have no other source whatsoever. Can you name
A reference that requires payment is still a reference and there is no
reason to remove it. Almost always, these paid sources are subscribed
to by libraries to which many hundreds of people here have access, and
can be accessed at least by those members of that institution, and
often by public
In a message dated 8/8/2009 6:50:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
A reference that requires payment is still a reference and there is no
reason to remove it. Almost always, these paid sources are subscribed
to by libraries to which many hundreds of people here have
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
About Women on Wikipedia, I think famous is probably problematic, like
list of short women, is too much based on a judgement call.
Heck, in a few cases the Women classification might prove to be based
on a judgement call. The panoply of transgender classifications and
Trying to hammer every peg into one of just two holes is bound to
cause problems.
Then there's the issue of people who are inter-sexed (born with mixed
or absent gender-specific organs, example being [[Jim Sinclair]]),
genderfuck (intentionally ignoring gender-specific cultural
16 matches
Mail list logo
