| Revision as of 20:27, 23 November 2009 editPablo X (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers21,600 edits →Heh!: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:40, 23 November 2009 edit undoA Nobody (talk | contribs)53,000 edits →Incivility: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">].</sub> 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC) | <span style="border-left: 1px solid #c30;">]</span><sub style="text-shadow: 3px 3px 3px rgba(255,255,0,0.75); color: #c30;">].</sub> 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == == | |||
| ] Please do not ] other editors{{#if:|, as you did at ]}}. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> Sincerely, --]<sup>'']''</sup> 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:40, 23 November 2009
About the article for creation...
...concerning Essai sur les moeurs et l’esprit des nations by Voltaire, I indeed translated it from the french wikipedia. I wish I could add more sources, but the whole sources are from the french wikipedia which seem to me correct and reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.163.173.218 (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Trollkarlen
Hello, I de-PRODded Trollkarlen after having changed it into an article on Svensk Magisk Cirkel, the organization that published it, and which should have a better chance of being seen as notable. This was also the article in Swedish Misplaced Pages that the Trollkarlen article was linked to. Regards, Tomas e (talk) 11:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please explain...
Could you please explain more fully this {{prod}}? "No sources by either name, with or without the word training. Sources in article are primary."
My understanding of the term "primary source", as used in the real world, and used in the wikipedia's policy documents, the sources used in that document are not primary sources. A researcher publishes results from a survey, or an experiment -- that is a "primary source". Another researcher surveys, evaluates, collates, and/or summarizes primary sources produced by others -- that is a secondary source.
The Summary of Evidence memos drafted by OARDEC are summaries of the work of others. That makes those documents secondary sources.
OARDEC wasn't even the same agency charged with the responsibility of interrogating the Guantanamo captives -- that was Joint Task Force Guantanamo.
The authors of those OARDEC memos reviewed reports from at least half a dozen other military and civilian agencies for each summary. In drafting those summaries they had to make decisions on what to include, and what to leave out. They had to make decisions when conflicting reports seemed to contradict one another. They had to make decisions on when multiple reports included multiple similar sounding events -- were they multiple reports of a single incident, or single reports of multiple incidents. This kind of independent and hopefully intelligent review of primary sources is precisely why the wikipedia places greater reliance on secondary sources. Geo Swan (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see your point, but by that reasoning a Prospectus (finance) would be secondary since it collects and analyzes the works of many accountants. However, a prospectus is still primary, since it is still a product of the corporation. Abductive (reasoning) 19:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Matthew Watson
Dear Abductive,
I am trying to get User:Msrasnw/Matthew Watson undeleted. Do you still believe he is none notable or the article is failing and have you any suggestions to make as to which areas you feel the article might be improved. I feel the article was deleted partly on the basis of incorrect information in the deletion arguments - he only has a book and couple of articles - not a full professor. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC))
- Let's centralize on the talk page. Abductive (reasoning) 19:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
'Atenisi dean
Tongan scholars are concerned why you challenge the biography of 'Atenisi's university dean. 'Atenisi's website confirms Dr Horowitz is dean -- Tongan universities are typically ignored by other online sources -- it would appear racist to require Tongan users to cite what does not exist. Dr Horowitz' scholarly articles are listed but these, alas, are not online, although citations to them are; it would seem unhelpful to link viewers to bare citations. What other aspect of what is, after all, a curt and bland biography do you find "contentious"?--202.134.25.5 (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Sinfoni Deo
When you put a page up for deletion and it is deleted, please make sure that there are no longer other pages linking to it. There was a link to Sinfoni Deo from Reborn.CFCF (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh!
Brilliant! pablohablo. 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Incivility
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sincerely, --A Nobody 20:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)