2009/8/19 David Goodman :
> As for the British parliamentarian, I can't identify him.
This was 2004, I really do not remember :-) If anyone who cares more
than me wants to grovel through my edits from five years ago ...
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing lis
Of course I wouldn't put them up for AfD. There is no reason to make
the previous text inaccessible--and conceivably some of it could be
used. I could do much more rewriting if people put fewer acceptable
(or at least fixable or mergeable) articles up for unwarranted AfDs,
or did not try to chang
Carcharoth wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopedia_topics
> "The only remaining task on Variation and selection is integrating
> references, probably to their own authors' pages. That page is still
> up for historical interest and to finish small amounts, but for all
> int
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:21 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/8/19 :
>
>> Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
>> source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for
>> AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the articles could be
>> fixed,
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I just want to address this one quote.
>
> < and tertiary sources, but very few secondary sources.>>
>
> Let's say that you have the "tertiary" (shudder) source EB 1911,
> "Cleopatra". You are aware that an enormous number of our articles
> were created *solely* from th
2009/8/19 David Gerard :
> 2009/8/19 :
>
>> Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
>> source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for
>> AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the articles could be
>> fixed, but the previous point was
2009/8/19 :
> Well get busy I still once-in-a-while encounter articles whose only
> source is EB1911. I would submit that if you actually put these up for
> AfD you'd get a lot of backflack for SNOW. Sure the articles could be
> fixed, but the previous point was that a single tertiary source is
;s not a straight copyvio.
-Original Message-
From: David Goodman
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Tue, Aug 18, 2009 6:11 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Policies, notability et al, was Request to
Wikipedians for BBC Documentary
Not that it's a single source. The problem is that it's a s
Not that it's a single source. The problem is that it's a single
outmoded source, never really balanced and NPOV, and by now wholly
unreliable in almost all subjects, the ancient world included. About
95% of it was written over a century ago, and there is almost nothing
for which new information an
I just want to address this one quote.
<>
I think this is a false reading of our intent.
The entire structuring of the "rely primarily on secondary sources" and
other discussion that primary sources can be included *when* the
material was already introduced by a secondary source in some way and
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> I believe tantamount not to "rules can be broken" but rather to "rules can
> change". I never advise people to be bold *against* policy, but rather
> to go to the policy discussion pages and see whether or not their
> situation might be an exception that we'd like to i
11 matches
Mail list logo
