I pointed them out because my argument was being misunderstood, not as any sort of appeal to authority. It was a point of common reference, nothing more. Care to try insulting me again, or are you done with that?
On 9/9/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
I never said they were useless, i argue that they dont meet our mission statement 'wikipedia is an encyclopedia', fail WP:NOT, 'indiscriminate collection of information' and are usually sourced to trivia works or put together by the editors, failing WP:NOTABLE and WP:OR. If you need help understanding my position, feel free to ask for clarification before setting up strawmen, it will help you effectively make your point next time :)
I'm sorry, but I've been around too long to be impressed by your mastery of wiki rule-lawyering. Your reference to strawmen seems to fll within the purview of the adage, "the pot calling the kettle black."
Ec
On 9/9/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Brock Weller wrote:
Were not deleting the article, were deleting the unencyclopedic crap sections. Your point is a strawman.
And since we're talking logical fallacies, you're begging the question. Calling the sections "unencyclopedic crap" presupposes that they're useless, whereas David and I have been arguing that a lot of what's in those sections is not crap but rather is just poorly formatted and integrated.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l