The group itself should be able to have a voice in what is and what is not
policy for the group.
As well the group should be able to know what *policy-based* actions are being
taken and why.
Shining light on moderator actions, ensures that moderators take action that is
fair, impartial, and
Steve confirm the *reason* you put me on moderation.
I'm sure that it will be quite interesting.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Sep 22, 2009 1:30 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Moderation (was:
In a message dated 9/20/2009 10:02:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
werespielchequ...@googlemail.com writes:
As for Every system should be open to audit review by anyone who
wishes to do so. This may at first glance sound like an attractive
slogan. But if my GP or my bank adopted such a policy
In a message dated 9/19/2009 12:05:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
The best practical way to audit admin actions is to become an admin
oneself. Admins have just as many conflicts among them as any other
active people here. There are people I watch, and people who
Jay you are confusing source-based research with original research.
If you research something to *confirm* it by researching in sources, you are
not doing original research.? If you research it by repeating experiments then
you would be.
I doubt that any textbook author confirms their sources
I have to modify my comments, because after toying around at
wiki.answers.com the voting system doesn't work.
It's the same issue at Knol in general. I get over a thousand views a
day of my knols and very very rarely does anyone vote my articles either up
or down. There has been suspicion
But your response sounds like There's no problem.? And I just pointed out the
problem.? Just go to wiki.answers.com for example, answer a few questions, then
check back in a month.
Even though people read articles, they aren't voting.
That's not the same as a poll, where you deliberately create
In a message dated 9/14/2009 1:30:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
If someone writes a paper and knowledge later advances, let the paper be
updated; provided the update is also peer reviewed it'll mean the topic's
paper is always latest knowledge. Not how it
Simple fixes to this proposal.
Use WikiJournal. Add peer-review to it.
Why not? Allow some WikiJournal articles to become more trusted than
others.
Will Johnson
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
In a message dated 9/13/2009 9:46:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dgoodma...@gmail.com writes:
This is somewhat similar to Citizendium, except their peer-review is
open, as is currently also considered a good practice. they haven't
gotten very far with it, and they seem to have almost all of
If wiki means quick then it would be quick in that the time between
writing and full publication should be much shorter than traditional in print
journals.
If wiki means anyone can edit it, then it wouldn't be a wiki.
If wiki only means that *you* and your *peers* can quickly edit it online
in
In a message dated 9/13/2009 2:48:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
Clearly, this information will not be ported back to Wikipedia.
Why is this clear? It isn't clear to me.
Will
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Brian, scholarpedia doesn't work as a replacement for wikijournal (or
whatever we decide to call it) because they require each editor to have a PhD
or
MD.
Some fields of endeavor, for which a person could indeed be a qualified
expert, and perhaps the leading expert in the world, don't even
In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:19:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
Papers are reviewed annually, or upon major new information, so they
become a living document -- the paper on the higgs boson as it is now,
and
the same paper as it was a year, 2 years ago,
My question Brian was to your remark that this would not pass into
Wikipedia. Your response didn't address why you think that. By pass into I
mean
cited in, quoted in, not *COPIED* obviously. We don't allow copy-paste
right now.
So all I can think is that you meant, that we should not cite
In a message dated 9/13/2009 3:21:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
There is no such requirement. It is a correlation only.
There is. Right on the main sign-up page
An editor of Scholarpedia should satisfy the following requirements:
Have a PhD or MD.
I take
In a message dated 9/13/2009 2:48:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brian.min...@colorado.edu writes:
Clearly, this information will not be ported back to Wikipedia.
This is a reminder of what you said.
I don't see why it's clear. You don't say should or cannot or dont
want but rather Will not
Here is their sign-up page
http://www.scholarpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Userlogin;
create=yes
Notice the requirement to be affiliated with some institution.
So again the entire concept of Scholarpedia is limited to universities and
possibly a few research laboratories.
I believe the
But I'm not equating speedy with out-of-process, you are.
I'm saying they are two different things.
I never stated that we have a process for speedy, since that wasn't the point I
was making.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia
The original point was that if a deletion was out of process (which is not
the same thing as speedy), than that is a valid reason to restore it.
Out of process not meaning there is no process for this but rather meaning
we have a process, which you did not follow.? Two different things.
In a message dated 9/12/2009 9:35:24 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
szv...@gmail.com writes:
According to the* Telegraph* one of Matthews (who is a 22 year-old
graphic
design) goals is to sell it. In theory, he could sell all of Wikipedia
article space content... 3,031,886 would give him an
In a message dated 9/11/2009 8:39:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysida...@gmail.com writes:
Possibly you don't. But the speedy deletion has no process, the only
recourse is review.
My understanding and usage in-world has always been that out-of-process
means not that we have a policy that
In a message dated 9/10/2009 3:36:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com writes:
Didn't they link
to the situation and its resolution? How would that not be a consensus?
I have no idea how linking creates a consensus.
So I can't really address this.
Will
In a message dated 9/10/2009 3:42:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
surreptitious.wikiped...@googlemail.com writes:
I nominate Will as the person making press statements when someone does
write the how to make a H-Bomb article.
I would like to thank all the little people I stepped on, on my
In a message dated 9/10/2009 5:48:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
We should not publish up-to-date and accurate
information on how to create great harm whether it is about A-bombs or
reporters held captive by the Taliban, and we don't,
Just to repeat by way of
In a message dated 9/10/2009 6:26:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
That is what the Foundation does in such cases, they pass information on
from outside sources that are knowledgeable about the situation.
Or, at we've seen, outside souces which create false
In a message dated 9/10/2009 6:34:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
fredb...@fairpoint.net writes:
To a certain extent this
conversation has been about, Common sense, what's common sense?, I don't
want no stinking commons sense, I'll work to rule and, if harm results,
tough!, Harm to Wikipedia?,
In a message dated 9/10/2009 7:35:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
tonysida...@gmail.com writes:
Out of process deletion isn't a valid reason to restore. Good for
the encyclopedia is.
That's right your honor. We beat the various innocent family members of
the criminal senseless in order to
In a message dated 9/10/2009 8:56:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stv...@gmail.com writes:
Let's suppose you have in your possession exact detailed plans for a
small H-bomb. Would you think you could simply put it into Wikipedia?
Only if we have reliable, well-researched, and peer-reviewed
That's funny your link got it's final character cut off in my email box so it
didn't work.
Testing whether this link will work...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Wilson_%28U.S._politician%29
-Original Message-
From: Keith Old
To: English Wikipedia
Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2009 1:38 pm
Are you equating the phrase out of process to the word speedy ?
I don't see those two as being the same thing.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Thu, Sep 10, 2009 8:59 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l]
I dispute that this is my private meaning.
And I propose that this is the standard meaning.
As well as the inworld meaning.
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 1:48 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l]
Investigative Journalism should go to WikiNews.
BTW does Wikinews have any traction yet?
I mean does it hit the first googly page ?
-Original Message-
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
To: fredb...@fairpoint.net; English Wikipedia
wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009
I really don't see this as IAR.
It seems the argument is that it's firmly BLP policy. That for some
reason (inexplicable apparently), keeping the name of a kipnap victim
secret, helps them to not be killed. Personally the argument seems
flat to me. But at any rate, if we were to have a
Do no harm isn't a consensus however.
That language is so incredibly vague it could be taken to mean almost
anything.
Fred we've been over this many times on this list :)
You really want to do it again?
We have articles on murder victims which appear on the top of Google,
keeping that fresh in
Well what were the sources?
Someone mentioned that there were sources, but didn't mention what.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
Interesting here is what they say about themselves
Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international
news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.
Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding
Iranian and foreign media professionals.
I don't think the point is needing to reach but rather it's slapping
the hand that reaches.
Which is a little more pro-active, and less passive sounding.
Is our position to be that, with a reliable source, we need multiple
sources in these cases as Fred puts it. And I really don't know what
It's a bit of a mistaken idea that the issue with H bombs is their
plans.
The method of making an H bomb is widely known.
The problem is not the blueprints. It's creating the necessary
equipment in order to enrich the uranium in the first place. Not a
cheap thing to do. Everyone however
-Original Message-
From: geni geni...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Sep 9, 2009 3:32 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Another Media and Wikipedia blackout on NYT
reporter in Afghanistan
2009/9/9 wjhon...@aol.com:
The entire argument about keeping
Emily wrote:
How does this discussion relate to Wikipedia?
Your new nickname is Kitten with a Whip
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
And I'd like to add contract violation *may* be illegal, there are
loopholes large enough to swim an elephant through, which is why
lawyers like contracts. No such thing as an unbreakable contract.
You may have heard about these lawyers that are suing mortgage
companies because they didn't
What I said, and what I've been saying is that any source which is our
first incident of a particular fact is a primary source, no matter
what their source was.
-Original Message-
From: Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Sep 8, 2009 8:44 pm
In a message dated 9/6/2009 12:09:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
stevag...@gmail.com writes:
Just to hijack the thread...Once a site is blacklisted, is there any
way to link to it? I had the situation recently that I wanted to
reference a site (squidoo.com from memory) but it was
Charles a few things.
You do not need to be in the US to read a Google Book. There is a thing
called proxy or super proxy or something of that sort, which will mask where
you are, and thus allow anyone to read a book as if they were in the US.
Secondly I like the idea of asking Google Books
No people *should* break and ignore stupid rules :)
Just like the pigs do.
What you didn't live during the '60s ?
I mean it's not like you're going to be sued by WMG for 2.4 million .
W.J. fight the man
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
In a message dated 9/5/2009 1:22:45 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com writes:
Yup, there is a reason the wjhon...@aol.com mails still have a killfile
chez moi. Managing to miss the point that if a link appears broken to
anyone in the world it might simply get
In a message dated 9/5/2009 2:10:48 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
wikim...@inbox.org writes:
But the link should go to a generic page which potentially works with
more sites than just Google Books, like [[Special:BookSources]].
I like that. Make Google Books just one of the options. I can see
In a message dated 9/5/2009 2:37:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
Either Google or the publisher/author of the book you viewed. People
get sued for bypassing DRM, why couldn't they be sued for bypassing
restrictions on Google books?
Google suffers no damage from
Tony gets the Gary Cooper award for this week.
Or in particular the Meet John Doe award
http://knol.google.com/k/chair-potato/gary-cooper-movies-on-youtube/hyujx7mco9jp/32
-Original Message-
From: Tony Sidaway tonysida...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
In a message dated 9/3/2009 7:21:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bluecalioc...@me.com writes:
Yeah, but see, the thing is, you don't own the blog. The person
writing it does (well, technically, the blog hosting service does).
They have the right to not have a comment show up. We could use
In a message dated 9/3/2009 7:24:33 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
majorly.w...@googlemail.com writes:
Or worse, THIS PERSON IS A DIRTY PEDO1!! (or something as bad).
Could
be problematic for BLPs.
--
We already get that. So this wouldn't change that issue.
No that was someone's idea, but not mine.
I like having the Make a Comment button at the bottom of each
article, as this would mimic what readers are used to seeing at other
sites.
I don't that this would create a seperate section on the Talk page
however, as I think this would clutter the Talk
I just today noticed a new interesting thing while doing a Google search.
Under each result there is a cloud looking thing and if you hover it it
says Comment. So I tried it.
Would someone else try this Google search
arsenic and old lace youtube
Just like that with the quotes and
I think I like Comment on this page at the bottom, but I'm hesitant
to endorse that creating a section on the discussion (Talk) page. I
have a reason for my hesitation.
Sometimes readers comments on say Patty Hearst might be something
like Oh I remember when this occurred, I was in the
In a message dated 8/31/2009 11:47:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
ft2.w...@gmail.com writes:
- WikiTrust might be described as a way to see how long an edit
endured
and how much trust it seems to have; in most users' hands it'll be
its
colored red/blue so its right/wrong.
-
Just last week I was out at a local flea market (is this the same phrase in
British English?), and I asked a junk-book seller if he's ever seen the
book Foster Family by Buddy Foster. I explained that Buddy was Jody Foster's
older brother who had actually had a TV career several years before
In a message dated 8/30/2009 6:22:24 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
We have those. I've heard Americans refer to garage sales. We
(Brits) have those sometimes, but more often we take stuff to a local
charity shop, or a school's jumble sale, or stick stuff in
Here's one
http://www.travelfurther.net/dictionaries/ba-tz.htm
he doesn't have Trolley though, I think that's one of the funniest ones
he doesnt list
To Brits a trolley is the cart you push around a grocery store.
To Americans a trolley is a streetcar usually electric and old-fashioned
and
Or if everybody knows how to game then the gaming advantage vanishes.
Full disclosure can also level the field.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
How do we know who twit? or tweet?
When a celebrity has an official web page, we can be fairly certain that
what is posted there as the core content is by their own authority.
How do you do that with tweets?
In a message dated 8/29/2009 12:04:01 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
In a message dated 8/28/2009 8:10:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bluecalioc...@me.com writes:
Holy cow. Is Jimbo aware of this?
--
Jimbo is irrelevant. We're cooking and eating him next week.
W.J.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
In a message dated 8/28/2009 11:20:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bluecalioc...@me.com writes:
When we are done, we can revert and voila! Wikipedia has food forever!
-
Just imagine how many Terabytes of data are hiden under the iceberg tip
that is what the casual reader
Go to
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sidebar: Search Posting Archives
Type in whatever, click Search
Result
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/mmsearch/wikien-l
404 NOT FOUND
Will Johnson
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
Evidently I am now a media darling
http://www.google.com/search?source=ighl=enrlz==q=knol+craigslist
The oddest part of this entire experience (other than the fact that it shot
me up to over 1,000 views a day), is how much of this news is either
simple reposting of titles with link, or
Welcome Wagon, we used to have one didn't we? I don't know what happened
to it, it seems like stale news.
Free Tutor Program - new users can choose to sign up for tutoring for $10
an hour... ok or free whatever. Have you been bitten? Are you frustrated?
Do you get laid often enough? (ok
The last book of Wikipedia was too fluffy. I prefer reality.
Gritty, in the trenches, kick sand in your face, thumb wrestle to the
death!
Tabloid style.
-Original Message-
From: FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 2:13 pm
Maybe that was the name, I can't remember.
I think they tried to welcome me once, and I put my boots up on the
table, pulled the cigar out of my mouth and said, Make my day fat boy.
Or it's possible that was a movie I saw.
-Original Message-
From: Emily Monroe bluecalioc...@me.com
I... friggin... love it.
And I rarely love anything at all. I mean I don't even love Cheetos,
although I like it.
But this page you linked is the first time I've ever encountered anyone
doing this.
It's the wave of the future! I wish I had the technical ability to do
it, or the time.
I'm like
Lack of visible reward. Yes I think that's is it, or part of it anyway.
It's why I've been fixated at Knol for a while. Wanting to see my own
name in lights.
Too bad Wikipedia couldn't have a sister project for publishing
scholarly papers.
Or could we? Or do we?
Will Johnson
-Original
Dude!
Conspirapedia is not taken!
What a fantabulous website that would be
Get on it.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I don't use a signature. Blame the AOL programming bastards for
spamming my email.
-Original Message-
From: Soxred93 soxre...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, Aug 28, 2009 8:19 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How to Not Bite was Positives to publicity
I don't equate second hand witness to secondary source.
A primary source is the first source we have that describes a certain
event.
Matilda was baptised in the Church of St Mary last Easter is a
primary source if the author isn't merely parroting some other known
source. The author doesn't
wiki doesn't mean quick to me
That derivation I think is pretty obscure.
To me when someone says Wiki whatever or wiki whatever for that
matter, it means collaborative editing.
W.J.
-Original Message-
From: stevertigo stv...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia
In a message dated 8/25/2009 6:50:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes:
Not quite. The first publication can be a secondary source, for instance
if the New York Times publishes an article on a car accident. A primary
source is something like a census return or,
In a message dated 8/25/2009 11:12:03 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
andrewrtur...@googlemail.com writes:
I had an interesting conversation with a senior BBC exec on this the
other day. Apparently, their lawyers aren't sufficiently comfortable with the
copyright violation checking on Wikimedia
So what was so special about this wiki or pseudo-wiki that it became
successful ?
-Original Message-
From: Keith Old keith...@gmail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tue, Aug 25, 2009 2:00 pm
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Online encyclopedia of life reaches 150,000
Sure a manuscript is an unpublished primary source, or an ancient book
only held in 12 libraries.
However if that item is published that does not create a secondary
source.
And if that item includes interviews with other people, that does not
make it a secondary source.
A primary source is
I disagree that editing turns a primary source into a secondary source.
And I disagree that we make that distinction in-project.
I also disagree that newspaper articles are secondary sources.
Some are, some aren't.
Is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle a primary source? Yes. Do you believe
that every
In a message dated 8/24/2009 10:47:15 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
geni...@gmail.com writes:
Wikipedia with it's surprisingly structured
entries is likely to be used as a significant stepping stone in this
direction.
What is the name of every celebrity born in
In a message dated 8/24/2009 12:23:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
geni...@gmail.com writes:
Birth dates and locations tend to be fairly structured within articles
so are fairly easy to get. Dealing with a term as vauge as celebrity
make the task impossible even with human intervention.
In a message dated 8/22/2009 8:59:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
kgnp...@gmail.com writes:
Right well, I'll start brushing up on my Breton and by the time I get
around
to learning Vietnamese the sun will have obliterated the earth and
Wikipedia
as we know it.--
I will wager $100
In a message dated 8/22/2009 11:24:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bodnot...@gmail.com writes:
I do sometimes get into the mindset of thinking everything I do with
Wikipedia might be a waste of time because I envision it collapsing,
dying, being fatally attacked or somesuch.
In a message dated 8/23/2009 4:53:57 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
The search for bees and flowers suggests pollination. I do not see
anything mindless about that. That is a human association
-
You're not understanding me. An article
In a message dated 8/23/2009 6:07:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca writes:
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=enq=wikihow+enlargement+penismeta=
It was there on link six.
It's a bit rough to complain about Wikihow in this regard. It's
Steve, news articles *in general* are primary sources.
Here is how you can tell: Is what I'm reading the first time someone has
published what I'm reading?
So and so was hit by a car today -- primary source, first time published.
Secondary sources collate multiple primary sources, any
In a message dated 8/23/2009 1:59:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bodnot...@gmail.com writes:
Do you think it would be hopelessly superseded by brain implants that
give us access to all knowledge all of the time? Who's to say that
that knowledge wouldn't be provided by Wikipedia?
In a message dated 8/22/2009 10:56:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
Because there is no need to determine what the meaning of
the particular term or keyword is, the pages it returns generally deal
with the same concept or concepts that you entered. For instance, if
you
In a message dated 8/22/2009 12:42:20 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
*a département of France
*a French river
*a French city
*the French name for Vienna
-
The Council of Vienne.
Also apparently Vienne is a surname, I'm sure we can
In a message dated 8/22/2009 6:44:23 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
stv...@gmail.com writes:
How is it claimed that we are bound to English spelling only, and yet
permit all the Nordic, Germanic, and French characters* - few of which
most *English* speakers know the pronunciation of. (*?)
In a message dated 8/22/2009 8:04:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
Will, is this genealogy webpage reliable at all?
http://gilles.maillet.free.fr/histoire/famille_bourgogne/famille_vienne.htm
Well one thing I always caution
In a message dated 8/21/2009 10:40:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
gwe...@gmail.com writes:
Only if you deny it '*with extreme predjudice*'.
And then jump on top of the podium and begin machine-gunning down
Congressmen.
-
While wearing a prom dress.
W.J.
In a message dated 8/21/2009 11:45:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
bluecalioc...@me.com writes:
Why not a wedding dress?
-
You may be too young to remember that it was the Homecoming Queen whose
Got A Gun I did it... for Johnny!
Will Johnson
-Original Message-
From: Jay Litwyn brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Fri, Aug 21, 2009 4:06 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Flagged Revisions
Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote in message
Here is what I think you mean. In a situation where there are only two
items that might be confused with each other, should we have a page for
those? Or should we, at the top of each item, merely point at the other
item? That's what it sounds like to me. And in that situation, where
we
I submit that there is no such language in any of our policies. If there
is, then whoever wrote it has no clue what we meant when we were discussing
tertiary sources many years ago. Tertiary sources are just summaries of
notable secondary sources. So they quite obviously provide notability,
This is how I do it. If in Plankton we have only one other thing named
planton, then we shouldn't have a disamg page just for two items. That seems
overkill. So in that case SB_Plankton makes sense. If however in Bob
Jones we have 15 people, 3 things, and 2 places named Bob Jones then it
So you repeat what I say and then say you're not repeating what I said, and
then repeat it
There's an issue here that you're arguing against your very own position.
I'm not sure you are understanding what I said.
W.J.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
I have no idea what you just ask. That's a lot of jargon for one
question.
-Original Message-
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wed, Aug 19, 2009 1:06 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Annoying hatnotes
Will, simple
The way it was discussed in-project a teritiary source summarizes
several secondary sources into one cohesive article. Let us first
set-aside those works calling themselves encyclopedias when they are
really specialist works that pretend to cover a subject area thoroughly
which is a different
1 - 100 of 549 matches
Mail list logo
