Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a26b33b36f01a8fe

Jump to content

Talk:Isidor George Beaver

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Doug butler in topic Quality of sources

Quality of sources

[edit]

Please do not add low quality sources. If a person is notable, you do not need to resort to routine newspaper coverage from the person's own lifetime to cite information. If he is notable, you should be able to find sources that discuss Beaver and his work in depth. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hon, you didn't even bother to read WP:ROUTINE before spouting it. Routine newspaper coverage is perfectly valid to cite in an article to verify pieces of information; it just doesn't, on its own, establish notability for the whole article. What you're doing is petty vandalism, pure and simple: you're removing valid sources from the encyclopedia to make a point and you need to stop. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I did read it. Routine coverage doesn't establish notability, just like you said. But all I see in your sources is routine coverage. Now, you did totally bombard this article so I haven't gotten thru all of them. Do you have a single source that discusses Beaver in depth? If so, show me. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • "Routine coverage does not establish notability" does not mean "Oiyarbepsy gets free license to vandalise articles by removing perfectly valid material sourced to routine coverage". It is a deletion argument (albeit an unconvincing one) for the article, not for the content, and what you're doing is straight-up vandalism based on either not bothering to read Wikipedia policy or wilfully misreading it to justify edit warring for shits and giggles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • Some of your sources are advertisements and won't let me even remove those. Advertisements are never ever ever ever ever reliable sources. They have to go. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • Can you give me a reference for that statement? Surely advertisements would be a reliable source for the address of a business premises. And surely advertisements calling for tenders would be a reliable indication that the advertiser is managing a contract. Doug butler (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply