Changes

Line 321: Line 321:     
Well, OK.  They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them?  There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
 
Well, OK.  They look similar to me, but I suppose if you look hard enough you can tease out a difference. What about the fact that our page "liberal" ignores all three of them?  There would seem to be little point in defining exquisitely nuanced rules if they are simply ignored in practice --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:38, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
Huh - I guess I should have asked this here. Oh well, here goes again. Given that the Bible is specifically named as an acceptable source, are there any works which are specifically '''not''' acceptable? If so, a lot of time and energy could probably be saved by providing that info right up front, perhaps in a 'ready reference' page for new editors. Then if someone keeps using a deprecated source they'll be known to be trolling. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 00:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
    
==Propose: "Don't copy"==
 
==Propose: "Don't copy"==
83

edits