| Revision as of 15:50, 11 August 2011 editBinksternet (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers494,034 edits →Article too big: explain misinformation← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:50, 8 March 2024 edit undoDreamy Jazz Bot (talk | contribs)Bots106,824 editsm Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA. |
| (132 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
{{Sanctions|1= Imposed by community discussion {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents|prev|416094200|here}}.}} |
|
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|1= |
|
|
|
|action1date=12:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC) |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Abortion|class=Start }} |
|
|
|
|action1link=Talk:A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion/GA1 |
| ⚫ |
{{ChristianityWikiProject|class=start|importance=low|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=low}} |
|
|
|
|action1result=listed |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Human rights|class=start|importance=low }} |
|
|
|
|action1oldid=464860347 |
| ⚫ |
{{WPReligion|class=start|importance=low}} |
|
|
|
|dykdate=27 August 2011 |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Feminism|class=start|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|dykentry=... that after 26 nuns signed ''''']''''', the ] stated that all but two had recanted, leading 11 others to issue a statement of solidarity denying that they had done so? |
|
{{WikiProject United States Public Policy| importance= low|class=start| comprehensiveness= | sourcing= | neutrality= | readability= | formatting = | illustrations = }} |
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=start|importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
|topic=Politics and government |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|listas=Catholic Statement On Pluralism And Abortion| |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Abortion}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=low }} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|USGov=Yes|USGov-importance=mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ab}} |
|
|
{{Archive box|search=yes| |
|
|
*] |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==File:MargaretTalking.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion== |
|
|
<!--TSTAMP:{{{4}}}--> |
|
|
{| |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| ] |
|
|
| <!--IMAGES--> |
|
|
An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: ''All Misplaced Pages files with unknown copyright status'' |
|
|
<!--/IMAGES--> |
|
|
;What should I do? |
|
|
''Don't panic''; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review ] before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. |
|
|
* If the image is ] then you may need to provide a ] |
|
|
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. |
|
|
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --] (]) 17:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC) |
|
== Image of the advertisement == |
|
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
I have ProQuest access, so I can get an image of the ad. It's obviously not public domain, but does it add to readers' understanding of the topic (justifying a fair-use rationale)? Or is it only the text, rather than the structure, layout etc., that is significant? ] (] ⋅ ]) 21:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
:I think it would be very helpful to see the page as a fair-use image. ] (]) 22:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
== Article too big == |
|
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206232249/http://sturdyroots.org/PDFs/VOC/VOC_Responsepdf.pdf to http://sturdyroots.org/PDFs/VOC/VOC_Responsepdf.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. |
|
It is arguable that this article is not even notable enough to be in Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
But even if it remains, I humbly suggest for its size to be cut down. It is horribly |
|
|
big. Big articles are harder to verify. Of course, sometimes you can't help but |
|
|
writing a big article, such as when writing an article about ]. |
|
|
This is because there is a lot of notable information to be said about Washington, |
|
|
and dozens or even hundreds of Wikipedians care about ], so it will |
|
|
be verified even if its big. |
|
|
But in the case of this New York Times ad, we have two conditions |
|
|
1) The article is pretty big and therefore time-consuming to verify |
|
|
2) Few people will care about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} |
|
Therefore, the chance of misinformation appearing here is pretty big. |
|
|
Would you please trim it down? I know you had a lot of work putting all |
|
|
this together, but please, trim it down. -- ] (]) 15:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 05:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
|
:No, it is the size that it is because of the good sources. What's this about misinformation? Explain. ] (]) 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
.svg)
