This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bryan Derksen(talk | contribs) at 23:24, 24 June 2002(removing some year articles that have had templates added). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:24, 24 June 2002 by Bryan Derksen(talk | contribs)(removing some year articles that have had templates added)
maveric149 May 9, 2002, because : discoherent and off topic
Eclecticology May 17, 2002, because : It could start with a definition
Gianfranco May 18, 2002, says "wait a minute" because : A "cache bug" was fixed to restore a version that tried to improve it.
RobLa May 25, 2002, because : <i>This is not an accurate description of \"politcal media\". Do a Google search for \"political media\" to see common use. \"Face The Nation\" definitely qualifies as political media, but not under current Wikipedia definition. This page is more accruately titled \"Government propaganda\"</i>
Toby Bartels May 12, 2002, because : What the heck is this? Is there an explanation of it somewhere? I mean, I think that I can figure out the idea, but there's no explanation for new users, or even old users that this user of a couple months knows to look for.
The Anome May 21, 2002, because : this is an interesting rant, but it needs lots of editing to be an encyclopedia article
RobLa May 26, 2002: Rewritten. I was limited to a hodgepodge of conflicting Internet sources, so fact checking would be useful. Moving old content to Talk:Borda count
Eclecticology May 21, 2002, because : The long series of stubs should be deleted and combined in this article
psychofish May 21, 2002: they were originally combined. It was split up to allow more in depth articles to be written on each game individually. I may do it myself in a few days.
GWO -- very short, and pretty low quality. Wholly unimformative.
I've put in his leadership dates, corrected the detail about who followed him (no-one remembers John Smith). It's not fixed, but it's a tad better. Tarquin June 9 2002
Karen Johnson May 27, 2002, because : <i>this needs modernising! It comes from the \'boys own book of sports 1900 edition\' and it\'s a quaint essay.</i>
Karen Johnson May 27, 2002, because : <i>this makes zero sense to me... I know I\'m a layman but shouldn\'t reading an article inform me at least a little as to the contents?</i>
maveric149 May 28, 2002, because : <i>more information on this guy is needed so that people outside of academia can understand why he is important.</i>
Daniel C. Boyer May 29, 2002, because : <i>there are still some outright falsehoods, such as "The movement successively drifted left, adherence to the Moscow communist party line became a requirement," and the article could stand to be expanded.
Daniel C. Boyer June 6, 2002, because : Needs massive expansion and besides just going through the history of painting should mention anti-painting tendencies such as Miro's "murder of painting" and the advent of conceptual art, &c.
Daniel C. Boyer June 6, 2002, because : Needs expansion and correction of this idea about Miro being an abstract painter. Miro was violently opposed to the abstract; this shows a gross misunderstanding of all of his work.
Daniel C. Boyer June 6, 2002, because : This whole article reads as if it is from an FBI brochure! Shouldn't there be a more NPOV presentation of criticisms and accolades, the views of critics and defenders?* 461
Bryan Derksen June 7, 2002, because : <i>needs template</i>
Karen Johnson June 14, 2002, because : <i>It has no information on the main page to tell us anything about this country... only the links to the subpages.</i>
I pulled some info off the subpages. (It's not a country, it's a rather barren Norwegian territory. Please take a look) Vicki Rosenzweig
maveric149 June 15, 2002, because : <i>This material is more wikified than the material on the subpages and is slightly different. This poses a version control issue that needs to be resolved. </i>
Daniel C. Boyer June 17, 2002, because First the phenomenon or alleged phenomenon should be described, i.e. what is different about the "Black Helicopter" than any old black helicopter (i.e. that people claim to see them without running lights, or large formations of them, or at a lower than usual altitude, or in places one would not typically expect to see a black helicopter, or the helicopters look different than usually-seen helicopters, or whatever the claim is), and then the [alleged] significance and the different theories about them laid out. Not very precise the way it is.
Toby Bartels June 21, 2002, because : <i>Little more than a dictionary definition now. Needs history of the concept in folklore -- Tolkien is just a small part of this.</i>
jheijmans June 24, 2002, because : <i>good page, but what where the objectives of the RAF? The page only says they were leftist and supported by the DDR.</i>
