In a message dated 3/31/2008 11:40:47 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee@rahul.net writes:
You are arguing that the rules should be followed. My point is that the rules produce an undesirable result in this case.>>
---------------------------- And you will find that those of us who monitor those talk pages, are very willing to have our minds changed on those talk pages and this would lead to a more clear understanding of this sort of situation.
I don't so far, find the argument about the covered bridge, compelling. The archive entry seems confused at best with the original poster not understanding the distinction we draw between print sources and photographs. That would be the first clue that something is amiss here. I personally would point them to that sub-section and request they add their photographs to the article. Esp. any photo dated, and showing, a vehicle passing through the bridge.
Secondarily, I would suggest they *contact* the publishers of the other sources to ask them to clarify the position currently, on that particular bridge. This has been done before, it's not a extreme position, many cases it's quite simple to get a re-published retraction or correction, provided this comes in the form of a public statement (website, newsletter) and not in the form of a private email.
This could then be cited as evidence that the bridge is re-open or open to private traffic or whatever.
Will Johnson
**************Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL Home. (http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15&ncid=aolh...)