![]() |
This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the month of December 2008. Exchanges spilling over from late November or into early January may have been retained elsewhere to avoid breaking their continuity.
In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the User talk:A. B. page. If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the user talk:A. B. page and then add your comments there. |
I just wanted to thank you for protecting Proskauer Rose. This article has been the subject of attack by a group of white supremacists with some kind of vendetta against this particular law firm. --Eastlaw (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
It's one year since you became an administrator, let's celebrate! Caulde 17:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi there. I'd like to thank you (and User:SiobhanHansa) for adding dnabaser.com and related domains to the blacklist, this has noticably reduced the spamming activity. It continues, albeit now on a low level, without logging in and with redirector links (e.g. via Romania: www.cubic.3x.ro/free-DNA-tools/index.html. It still occasionally flares up like can be seen in the recent history of Sequence assembly.
Note that I would have nothing against the product being linked per se (other commercial, academic or open source apps of the same domain are too, and this helps readers to find something that suits their needs), but the complete refusal of the spammer to play nice makes this a bit hard.
Question: Would you have any advice on how one could get back to a more peaceful state? Those edit wars are childish ... but not really funny.
Regards, BaChev (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have a question about original research that wasn't answered in the FAQ section.
The key difference between "original research" and "common knowledge" is whether or not an average person who does note specialize in the field the article pertains to would know. For example, things like "The sky is blue," is common knowledge to anyone who is not colorblind (at which point he would not be an "average person"), but saying something that would be common knowledge for a person in the field, but not for someone outside the field (such as pro wrestling history), is NOT common knowledge for Wikipedia purposes.
However, would it still be considered "original research" if you would take a series of facts that are common knowledge, and piece them together in a way that the only logical conclusion a reasonable person could come to from that collection of common knowledge.
Would I be allowed to put that in an article without needing to cite it (as long as I include in the body of the article the pieces of common knowledge that led to this conclusion)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.48.186 (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply