wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The Rachel Marsden article is out-of-date. There is no ending material on
the ebay Auction for one thing. It just says items were put up for
auction. How much did they get? Who won them? etc.
The initial listing, when prices became silly, was cancelled by eBay
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
I'm not convinced that a property's mere existence on the National Trust
website makes it notable. We have many cases where things are mentioned
in this or that place and yet that thing is not notable the way we use the
word. It would be up to the author to
Ray Saintonge wrote:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
The Rachel Marsden article is out-of-date. There is no ending material on
the ebay Auction for one thing. It just says items were put up for
auction. How much did they get? Who won them? etc.
The initial listing, when prices became
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
And all that information will probably be [[WP:OR]], since I doubt that
the media bothered doing a Jimbo's pants: where are they now follow-up
a few months later. ;)
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
Requiring the author
to explain why a property is notable makes it easier to have shifting
goalposts for notability to satisfy the AfD denizens.
-
We have always placed the burden
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
And all that information will probably be [[WP:OR]], since I doubt that
the media bothered doing a Jimbo's pants: where are they now follow-up
a few months later.
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
Requiring the author
to explain why a property is notable makes it easier to have shifting
goalposts for notability to satisfy the AfD denizens.
-
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
Notability can only be determined from reliable sources.
Websites of local genealogists and local historians are not reliable simply
because they exist.
They're not unreliable either. I prefer to site my sources as precisely
as possible, and trust the reader to
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Kwan Ting Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote:
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:30:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
And all that information will probably be [[WP:OR]], since I doubt that
the media bothered
In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
They're not unreliable either. I prefer to site my sources as precisely
as possible, and trust the reader to decide the reliability of those
sources for himself. Dictating to a reader that only our
2009/4/28 wjhon...@aol.com:
In a message dated 4/27/2009 4:27:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
thomas.dal...@gmail.com writes:
That's the point we are disputing, you can't use it as a premise for
your argument...
--
I know you are disputing it. I'm stating that it's a
Re :King Arthur is the ancestor of the present Queen Elizabeth
If he existed, and I understand prevailing wisdom is that there probably was at
least one dark age warlord behind the myth, and if he had progeny then its
statistically probable that he features in the ancestry of our current Queen
In a message dated 4/28/2009 1:15:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
We have always placed the burden of proof-of-notability on the
contributing
author, not on the rest of the AfD posters. That's been true across
each
AfD for notability that I've
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/4/28 doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com:
I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The
burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to
delete. What level of evidence or proof will convince a consensus of
wikipedians is up
On 28/04/2009, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any
burden is discharged.
No.
I'm pretty sure that the principle is that any material that isn't
referenced to a reliable source can be removed at any time,
irrespective of
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/04/2009, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any
burden is discharged.
No.
I'm pretty sure that the principle is that any material that isn't
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
sainto...@telus.net writes:
They're not unreliable either. I prefer to site my sources as precisely
as possible, and trust the reader to decide the reliability of those
sources for himself. Dictating to a reader that only our preferred
sources are reliable is
In a message dated 4/28/2009 6:34:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
I disagree that the burden of proof is on the contributing author. The
burden is on those wishing to delete something to achieve a consensus to
delete.
--
That's right, but
In a message dated 4/28/2009 9:07:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
If someone wants to dispute that the
contributor's source is not reliable, a blanket statement about that
without evidence is an assumption of the contributor's bad faith.
--
The issue in
In a message dated 4/28/2009 10:14:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
sainto...@telus.net writes:
But you aren't even allowing editors to use judgement when you dictate
what is reliable. You're substituting your judgement for theirs.
--
By you and you're are you referring to me
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com writes:
A church website, if it is obviously aimed at PR
and full of blurb, should have claims of membership and influence taken
with a pinch of salt. However, a page on a small church which narrates
that it was built in 1791, built
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 6:13 PM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote:
snip
The Reliable Sources Noticeboard does not represent the community as a
whole, and the doubts there are only raised by those who question a
source. Like AfD it has its own swarm of fellow travellers, who find it
In a message dated 4/28/2009 12:50:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
carcharot...@googlemail.com writes:
The debate over whether some discussions are better held at a
centralised, specialised venue, or on the article talk page, is a
long one. There are advantages and disadvantages to both
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
sainto...@telus.net writes:
But you aren't even allowing editors to use judgement when you dictate
what is reliable. You're substituting your judgement for theirs.
--
By you and you're are you referring to me myself?
If not, then to what do you
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
sainto...@telus.net writes:
I've seen awful work done by professionals too, so I'm not
about to abandon my judgement when I see academic or professional titles
attached to somebody's name.
I agree that credentials don't necessarily
On 28/04/2009, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 28/04/2009, doc doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
But, as long as a consensus, with good reason, wish to retain, any
burden is discharged.
No.
I'm pretty
I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia.
My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that
the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate*
make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful
as unified value based on both.
The
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Thought I might link the latest Orlowski 'article'.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/
Wiki-fiddling isn't a charitable activity, according to the UK tax
man. Revenue and Customs is denying tax privileges that go with
stevertigo wrote:
I'm just wondering what our current slog rank is on en.wikipedia.
My sense is that it's somewhere around 8.5%, but I realize that
the interdependence between a site's slog rank* and slog rate*
make it such that either value, however accurate, is not as useful
as unified
stevertigo wrote:
Listers,
I've submitted a suggestion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Burials
with regard to how burials can be referenced in more encyclopedic language
than currently used.
Comments and criticism welcome.
The distinction that you make is unlikely to be
30 matches
Mail list logo
