Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
I'm chary of experts determining what sources are reliable, as
Carcharoth suggests. There are two meanings for reliability.
Reliability in RS, I claim, depends solely on the publisher, and
reliability in this sense is about notability, and certainly not
about
Soxred93 wrote:
Despite the fact that this guy has many of his facts are wrong, he does
have some element of truth.
Not only Technically Incorrect, but actually incorrect, and sloppy
too. It would be a pernicious meme, that you can't contribute
successfully to Wikipedia by getting an
2009/8/15 Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com:
Not only Technically Incorrect, but actually incorrect, and sloppy
too. It would be a pernicious meme, that you can't contribute
successfully to Wikipedia by getting an account, reading the
instructions, and doing your best.
Actually the redirect isnt much of an issue.
Moves from draft to mainspace leaving a redirect are harmless (or indeed
beneficial, they show where the draft ended up to anyone checking it)
Moves from mainspace to draft are usually going to be due to being deemed
inadequate at AFD, or possibly
2009/8/15 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com:
At 05:01 PM 8/14/2009, you wrote:
Even quite patient experts have a limited tolerance for idiocy.
For an extreme case, look at the first global warming arbitration
case, where the cranks got together to try to get one of the UK's
top
