| Revision as of 01:40, 12 April 2007 editYakuman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,214 edits →Selected articles← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:43, 12 April 2007 edit undoWill Beback (talk | contribs)112,162 edits →Selected articles: why these?Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| Simple: a list like this needs no criteria, also I'm sure you'll go looking to prove me wrong. By your logic, we'd have to delete every template, external links set, and category as OR as well. I think there are people who want to do that, but I find it unhelpful. ] 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | Simple: a list like this needs no criteria, also I'm sure you'll go looking to prove me wrong. By your logic, we'd have to delete every template, external links set, and category as OR as well. I think there are people who want to do that, but I find it unhelpful. ] 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Yes, every list needs a criteria, otherwise it's just the POV of the editor who added it. Since you are the editor who added it, please explain why you selected these articles. -] · ] · 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:43, 12 April 2007
Lubinskas
This is almost off-topic, and I don't care either way about the link, but in the comment on the removal - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Chronicles_%28magazine%29&diff=67435287&oldid=67369612- what's the basis for calling James Lubinskas a "neocon" (well, actually, this calls him a "necoon", but we all typo now and then)? I know of him mostly for his involvement with U.S. English, not a particularly neocon group, arguably more paleo (more precisely, having done a bit of web searching, he seems to be in with the Occidental Quarterly crowd, who don't call themselves paleo, but everyone else calls them that. Anyway, nothing neoconservative about them.) Or was the remark just offhand and didn't mean much? I'd be interested (and a bit surprised) if he actually has neoconservative ties or views. - Jmabel | Talk 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Selected articles
What criteria is being used to compile the list of selected articles? Any? Or is it just some editor picking articles that he likes? If it's the latter then it has no reason to exist. Acceptable criteria would be things like "most cited", "most read", "lead articles by month". -Will Beback · † · 01:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Simple: a list like this needs no criteria, also I'm sure you'll go looking to prove me wrong. By your logic, we'd have to delete every template, external links set, and category as OR as well. I think there are people who want to do that, but I find it unhelpful. Yakuman (数え役満) 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, every list needs a criteria, otherwise it's just the POV of the editor who added it. Since you are the editor who added it, please explain why you selected these articles. -Will Beback · † · 01:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)