Talk:John A. Bensel
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Kraxler in topic Restoration of deletions
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Restoration of deletions
editIf you think Political Graveyard is an unreliable source develop consensus and have it added to the blacklisted unreliable source list. If you think the age of someone at death is unencyclopedic develop consensus at the Manual of Style and I will help you strip the tens of thousands of occurrences in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think it's unreliable, I know. Besides, it fulfills the criteria for unreliable sites: it's self-published, without peer review, and without stating sources. Also, I do not lobby, and I do not blacklist. The PG is irrelevant here, since all info contained there is supported here by other sources. See Wikipedia:RS#Self-published and questionable sources. Kraxler (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- So it is reliable since all the facts are correct but it is unreliable because it is a website? Peer review is for scientific journals. The New York Times is not peer reviewed, they don't send a copy to the Wall Street Journal before they publish. If you think it is unreliable, develop consensus instead of ad hoc deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- You don't get it. The death age is shown in the info-box. Why must everything be repeated three or four times everywhere, Mr. Norton? To get more edits? To pose as "The Great Lexicographer"? 32 edits to write a single-sentence non-article with the one piece of info (life-span) repeated five times? Why can't you learn to use the "Show preview" button. It is there to be used, Mr. Norton. Kraxler (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is no valid reason for deletion of the age at death so I am restoring it. If you can cite a Wikipedia rule from the manual of style that supports your view, I will gladly remove it myself. Please note that everything in the infobox is repeated in the text of the article. That is the nature of an infobox. You may also note that some facts are repeated in the text and in the lede and are duplicated by succession boxes and by categories. Some articles also repeat the information in a timeline. It would be more persuasive if you quoted the manual of style. If you are correct and redundant information must be removed, we can delete the categories, and delete the infobox and delete the succession boxes together. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- You are sidestepping the issue again. Now a direct question: Why are you unable or unwilling to use the "Show preview" button? Kraxler (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- There is no valid reason for deletion of the age at death so I am restoring it. If you can cite a Wikipedia rule from the manual of style that supports your view, I will gladly remove it myself. Please note that everything in the infobox is repeated in the text of the article. That is the nature of an infobox. You may also note that some facts are repeated in the text and in the lede and are duplicated by succession boxes and by categories. Some articles also repeat the information in a timeline. It would be more persuasive if you quoted the manual of style. If you are correct and redundant information must be removed, we can delete the categories, and delete the infobox and delete the succession boxes together. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)