Wikipedia talk:Accuracy dispute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Accuracy dispute page. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Archives: 1 | |||
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Should this page be retired?
The disputes on this page are extremely old, and I'm not sure this page serves much of a purpose anymore, when we have other elements of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution that can be used, and tags such as {{Disputed}} which will put articles into categories with hundreds or thousands of other articles needing review. Can we mark this page as inactive? --Elonka 06:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Unless anyone disagrees, I'm going to start cleaning this page out soon. It may still serve a purpose for some editors to flag new disputes, but the old stuff that's been here for months (or years!) can probably be removed. In some cases it might be appropriate to actually put a {{disputed}} tag on an article that's been listed here, but I can't see as there is any particularly constructive purpose in just leaving listings here forever. --Elonka 04:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Please don't retire this page.. i am in the band and Im trying to update our Wikipedia page so it gives factual info... how can I go about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Komputer124 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 1993 UN Security Council Resolutions on Nagorno-Karabakh
According to UN Resolutions Nagorno Garabagh is a inseparable part of Azerbaijan and Armenians should release the occupied territories of Azerbaijan immediately. So far neither Armenia nor any country has recognized Nagorgo Garabagh as a independent country. It is part of Azerbaijan Republic but occupied and under the control of Armenians.
Please refer to UN website through <http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/13508.htm> Elik.Az (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Karimov
[edit] "List of longest ruling non-royal leaders of all time" page
Hi,
After watching the already existing longest reigning monarchs of all time page and adding a few monarchs to that list as I read about them, I thought that it made sense to create a similar page that lacked the same bias. That is, since the existing page was specifically for royalty, I thought it made sense to make a new one that was about non-royals, since that would include much of the modern world and could be much more interesting to a lot of people since it seems more currently relevant. I made this new page modeled after the old one.
Today I read that someone has tagged this page for factual inaccuracies and that information may be removed because there are no citations. Everything on that page is just summarizing what is written already in other Wikipedia articles. There are no outside sources. Rather than read through thousands of articles for such information, the idea is to have it readily avaliable in one place. If people want to find out more about a given person, they just click on that person and read more on that person's article. The source for the information will, presumably, be there. If there are "factual inaccuracies" it seems like people should take it up with the original articles since that is where the information came from, not this article thats only purpose is to summarize what is in other articles.
There are lots of other articles like this, such as lists of presidents and kings of various countries and these don't seem to be facing the same kinds of problems. What is it that makes the page I made different from them? Is there something else that I need to do so that it doesn't get deleted?
Thank you,
ARKdeEREH - January 6, 2009
[edit] Warren Buffett to sell shares
Warren Buffett was the richest man in the world, but as of Friday, March 13 2009 he is in talks to sell back his Millions in shares back to Berkshire Hathaway in the effort to remain the richest man. Selling of his shares might likely put Berkshire into the dollar range and would take some time to recoup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.87.63.195 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
In the article about the Washington Post March, the form is identified as IAABBCCDCDC. This is incorrect. What is identified as D is by no musical standard a complete melody, but is instead an interlude. There is no D section. IAABBCCInterludeCInterludeC (I can be used for both intro and interlude). So: IAABBCCICIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrcolbrook (talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] so
so you mean the info i got and turned in to school can possably be wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.133.27 (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
