Talk:Two Rivers, Wisconsin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the priority scale. | |
[edit] WALRUS's edits
These edits [1] seem generally trivial, non-notable, and original research - three things we try to avoid when writing good encyclopedia articles. I've reverted twice, and they shouldn't be re-inserted unless in better accordance to WP's standards. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
To the individual who removed my edits... why? Who are you to deem what is appropriate, and what isn't? Factual information about the city seems appropriate to me. 9/14/06 10:22 AM - WALRUS
- While I can't speak for other editors, the factualness of an entry is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for inclusion in an encyclopedia. For example, the statement "Joe Smith used to run a gas station in Two Rivers, but doesn't anymore" might be true, but it is not notable for an encyclopedia article about the city. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. (That said, some of your contributions have been included in the article in a more appropriate fashion) --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
No problem. You've allowed my stuff twice now. I have no beef with you. While some of my edits may have been unimportant, a lot of it was worthy. So thank you for putting them back up. Hopefully it won't be removed by others again. 9/14/06 11:13 AM - WALRUS
