Template talk:Evident - Revision history

CPalmer: /* Numbering */ done.

2012-04-30T15:03:33Z

Numbering: done.

Cipe: /* Numbering */ new section

2012-04-24T22:51:57Z

Numbering: new section

CPalmer: update

2012-04-18T08:20:51Z

update

CPalmer: /* obvious and/or undisputed */ I disagree

2012-04-18T08:15:04Z

obvious and/or undisputed: I disagree

AugustO: Created page with "== obvious and/or undisputed == The very use of this template at E=mc² shows how bad the idea is{{evident}}. ==References== {{reflist}}"

2012-04-18T05:39:54Z

Created page with "== obvious and/or undisputed == The very use of this template at E=mc² shows how bad the idea is{{evident}}. ==References== {{reflist}}"

New page

== obvious and/or undisputed ==
The very use of this template at [[E=mc²]] shows how bad the idea is{{evident}}.
==References==
{{reflist}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:03, April 30, 2012
Line 12:		Line 12:

	I cannot edit the page because of spam filter. The reference to rule 13 can be updated to 14. [[User:Cipe\|Cipe]] 18:51, 24 April 2012 (EDT)		I cannot edit the page because of spam filter. The reference to rule 13 can be updated to 14. [[User:Cipe\|Cipe]] 18:51, 24 April 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	:Thank you, Cipe - that was well spotted. I have made the update.--[[User:CPalmer\|CPalmer]] 11:03, 30 April 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:51, April 24, 2012
Line 8:		Line 8:
	==References==		==References==
	{{reflist}}		{{reflist}}
		+
		+	== Numbering ==
		+
		+	I cannot edit the page because of spam filter. The reference to rule 13 can be updated to 14. [[User:Cipe\|Cipe]] 18:51, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 :I don't agree. The template hasn't changed anything about that page or its content, except that new users will now be swiftly directed to the relevant page that tells them why a reference is not required. It will be particularly useful to those with some knowledge of Wikipedia, who may assume that Conservapedia works in the same way.
 :In the future, I anticipate that this template will also act as a good, robust response to those who seek to undermine good material through excessive use of the <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> template, as has happened here in the past.
-However, if you'd like to suggest better wording than "obvious and/or undisputed" then please do. I think we could probably improve on that.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:15, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
+:However, if you'd like to suggest better wording than "obvious and/or undisputed" then please do. I think we could probably improve on that.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:15, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
+:Update: I've now expanded the notes to give more examples of where this might be used. In the case of E=mc2, I would say that the "liberal claptrap" statement falls into the third category - it sums up what is said later on in the article. I expect that what I've put could still be further improved.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:20, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
 ==References==
 {{reflist}}

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == obvious and/or undisputed ==
 The very use of this template at [[E=mc&sup2;]] shows how bad the idea is{{evident}}.
 ==References==
 {{reflist}}