User talk:MaeseLeon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Singaporean bloggers
If you read the articles, you'll see the assertions of notability which make their significance become quite clear. They are no less notable than the bloggers from any other country, and just as influential within their own spheres. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 04:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Frequently cited on the mainstream press (esp. The Straits Times, including frontpage coverage) should easily meet the criteria for inclusion as Singapore bloggers. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Blogging is undoubtedly significant as a phenomenon, so I do not see why bloggers who are notable enough to be cited in other media do not have encyclopedic value. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 10:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- The value of the blog's contents itself should not affect the value of documentation of these blogs on Wikipedia. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 10:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I think that, on some level, you're not quite seeing the wood for the trees. On one level, you may not think you're "deserving" of an encyclopedia article, but your opinion about your own notability wouldn't really come into play in a Wikipedia article about you since (a) you couldn't create your own article as that would violate vanity policies and (b) you would have to be put through the same notability criteria anyway. The question you need to ask yourself when approaching an article is whether or not the subject conforms to Wikipedia notions of notability. It may very well be that all of these could be subsumed within a single "Blogging in Singapore" article. On the other hand, it may not, if there is enough substance within those subjects to be spun out on its own. However, you need to look at it in the larger context of where such articles belong, in a holistic fashion. Wikipedia is not paper, and Wikipedia aspires to, and needs to cover, areas other than the First World, especially since the blogosphere extends beyond that. Granted, media citation is not the be all and end all, but it is a helpful indicator. There is no checklist, and I can tell you for a fact that blogging is a worldwide phenomenon, and bloggers like Mr Miyagi, Mr Brown, Xiaxue, et al. are all very influential in their own spheres. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 14:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hi! I saw your note on Talk:Baianism and fully agree with you. Interestingly, I'm working on Blaise Pascal now, so clearly needed to approach a bit the topic of Jansenism and of the formulary controversy, background of this Provincial Letters. This led me to some editing here, and to surprisingly find in several points of Wikipedia a strong bias against Jansenism, and poorly written articles concerning efficacious grace and prevenient grace (strangely related by one - and only one - source to Augustinism, while efficacious grace did not mention Augustine and Thomas Aquinas' upholdal of them). I find it actually quite funny to see some editors who still feel strongly about a theological debate several centuries old, but then I guess that it surely retains its importance... for theologians. But this has clearly led to a misrepresentation of the topic on Wikipedia. Spirals31 (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Maria Diaz Cortes
Can you please reveal that her birth date is official, not just a claim?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have removed the above individual from List of the verified oldest people, since "verification" entails verification from an international body, rather than a national one, as national bodies have been known in the past to "verify" cases that are not true for their own reasons. International bodies provide a (relatively) more objective standard. I have reworded the criteria to make this condition more obvious. Cheers, CP 19:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
