Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread Ian Woollard
On 23/05/2011, geni wrote: > Google's search results are entirely their business. Actually not entirely, we do have quite a bit of control. In an absolute worse case we could noindex the entire article (I'm not suggesting it, in fact I strongly recommend against it). But google pay attention to

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, Fred Bauder wrote: > From: Fred Bauder > > I've no idea how the Wikipedia article manages to get > itself represented > > twice, with two different titles (one of which > redirects to the other). > > Personally, I think redirecting the thing to > Santorum's BLP and covering

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread The Cunctator
There's also this: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/9/4/9/p259493_index.html *Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum Becomes santorum

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, George Herbert wrote: > I don't know that it's been reviewed in analytical terms at > that > level.  It's so offensive on one level that academics > and political > commentators seem to just shy away from it rather than > addressing the > rather deep "Hey, what does this say

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread Fred Bauder
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Charles Matthews > wrote: >> On 24/05/2011 18:49, George Herbert wrote: >>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder >>>  wrote: > Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread George Herbert
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Charles Matthews wrote: > On 24/05/2011 18:49, George Herbert wrote: >> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder  wrote: Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. >>> You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this. >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread Charles Matthews
On 24/05/2011 18:49, George Herbert wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: >>> Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. >> You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this. > No, he (and we) are not. Dan Savage is responsible for this. >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread The Cunctator
Huh? On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. > > You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this. > > Fred > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@list

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread George Herbert
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: >> Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. > > You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this. No, he (and we) are not. Dan Savage is responsible for this. -- -george william herbert george.herb...@gm

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread Fred Bauder
> Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. You've got one word right, "our". You are responsible for this. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread Fred Bauder
> I've no idea how the Wikipedia article manages to get itself represented > twice, with two different titles (one of which redirects to the other). > Personally, I think redirecting the thing to Santorum's BLP and covering > it there would be the "encyclopedic" thing to do. > > The comparison to

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread The Cunctator
Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > --- On Tue, 24/5/11, GmbH wrote: > > From: GmbH > > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] > > To: "English Wikipedia" > > Date: Tuesday, 24

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread Andreas Kolbe
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, GmbH wrote: > From: GmbH > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] > To: "English Wikipedia" > Date: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 1:11 > > On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > > We discussed this a couple of days ago at our meet-up. >

Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

2011-05-24 Thread GmbH
On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > --- On Mon, 23/5/11, Charles Matthews > wrote: > >> From: Charles Matthews > >>> On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingus >> wrote: When you Google for Santorum's last name this >> Wikipedia article is the second result. This means tha