Sarah Ewart wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
Where was Robert Corell's article previously? Perhaps my search was
inadequate but I didn't find it looking quickly...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._Corell
As of 28
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Sarah Ewart wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
Where was Robert Corell's article previously? Perhaps my search was
inadequate but I didn't
Gwern Branwen wrote:
It is easier to attack than defend. If you want to justify high
standards and removal, there are easy arguments: 'what if this could
be another Seigenthaler?' 'what if this is fancruft Wikipedia will be
criticized for including?'
If you want to defend, you have... what?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Sarah Ewart sarahew...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:46 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:
Where was Robert Corell's article previously? Perhaps my search was
inadequate but I didn't find it looking quickly...
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
And no-one has yet created a redirect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Corell
PS. I forgot. Bob Corell gets a lot of hits as well, and should be a
redirect also.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
But this
feeds into my point about whether such articles should be brought to a
minimum standard, instead of roughly referenced along with a lot of
others ones being worked on at the same time, and then the people
doing this rough-and-ready referencing moving on to other
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
But this
feeds into my point about whether such articles should be brought to a
minimum standard, instead of roughly referenced along with a lot of
others ones being worked on at the
Hi all,
I was curious about a vandalistic edit[1]: the logged-out vandal, who uses a
US-based home broadband ISP[2][3], has made only one edit: the vandalistic edit
I mentioned. The edit was made two days ago. I reverted it, then tried using
Soxred93's useful Range Contributions tool[4] to
Carcharoth wrote:
The interesting thing is noting at what point someone reaches some
critical mass of *real* notability (i.e. not Wikipedia's definition of
it) and they start to gain widespread recognition from their peers,
and then start receiving awards and whatnot, and also how competent
JustFixIt.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:18 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Carcharoth
carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
And no-one has yet created a redirect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Corell
PS. I forgot. Bob Corell gets a
Sometimes I don't understand people. Carcharoth goes to the trouble of
finding his birth date, learning he received the Brazilian Order of Merit,
and lists out some copy errors, but then doesn't fix the page?
I mean, what's the point?
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Carcharoth
Oh, I will, just not right now. Wrong computer.
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 1:09 PM, The Cunctator cuncta...@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes I don't understand people. Carcharoth goes to the trouble of
finding his birth date, learning he received the Brazilian Order of Merit,
and lists out some copy
The Cunctator wrote:
Sometimes I don't understand people. Carcharoth goes to the trouble of
finding his birth date, learning he received the Brazilian Order of Merit,
and lists out some copy errors, but then doesn't fix the page?
I mean, what's the point?
Um, maybe email is OK in the
I re-copy edited it. It was rescued in a rush, and improved in a rush.
The next step is to collate with the original article., and then to
look for good additional material.
Some of the above discussions imply much too high a standard, both for
what should be in Wikipedia and for what the quality
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 3:59 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
I re-copy edited it. It was rescued in a rush, and improved in a rush.
The next step is to collate with the original article., and then to
look for good additional material.
Thanks.
Some of the above discussions imply
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
snip
I would say the MilHist B-class criteria would be a good minimum
standard).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/B-Class
* B1. It is suitably referenced, and all
The first one I found was h Miranda July, which is not an unsourced
BLP, and was not tagged as such. . Though tagged as needing
additional references, it is rather well referenced as our articles
go, and there is no question about notability. What it is, is a BLP
that badly needs updating.
The
Carcharoth wrote:
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
wrote:
snip
I would say the MilHist B-class criteria would be a good minimum
standard).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/B-Class
* B1. It is
On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
snip
Those B-class criteria would need modifying for BLPs.
a case of a BDP
Ah! Biography of a Dead Person? :-)
but I actually created two articles about the same person once, who had been a
professor
Carcharoth wrote:
Fascinating. Didn't they have the same name and birth and death year?
You aren't going to make us guess which person this was, are you? I'm
guessing 16th century and Huguenot.
Not far off. [[Ralph Baines]] and [[Rudolphus Baynus]].
Charles
Unforgettableid unforgettableid at gmail.com writes:
A) Did I go too far when I did all the research I described above? Do you
yourself often use the Range Contributions tool[4] for looking at vandals'
ISPs' contributions?
C) Why did no anti-vandalism software automatically revert either
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, William Pietri wrote:
The problem is that even if you're only supposed to remove contentious
unsourced material, there's absolutely nothing anyone can do to you if you
remove noncontentious material.
I think it's reasonable to ask the remover if they're actually
2010/1/27 Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com:
* B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate
inline citations.
* B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious
omissions or inaccuracies.
* B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section
23 matches
Mail list logo
