In a message dated 7/14/2008 7:19:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee@rahul.net writes:
-- It's ridiculous to say that a source must be given for anything challenged, rather than for anything sincerely challenged. >>
-------------------- How do you propose to fix the line between these two cases?
If you check our page on reliable sources I think it was (I worked on these quite a while ago, can't quite remember where it was put), it already states that we don't have to source things that are trivial, common knowledge, etc.
The problem is how to determine whether knowing how to use a particular look-up table is really trivial, or should at the *minimum* be linked.
Will Johnson
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com! (http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:10 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
How do you propose to fix the line between these two cases?
If you check our page on reliable sources I think it was (I worked on these quite a while ago, can't quite remember where it was put), it already states that we don't have to source things that are trivial, common knowledge, etc.
The problem is how to determine whether knowing how to use a particular look-up table is really trivial, or should at the *minimum* be linked.
In any case your involvement in this discussion thus far has been very POINTy. Though presumably that doesn't apply to the mailing lists, it's still annoying as hell.
Are you on any one side in this discussion or are you just arguing for the hell of it?