NAHLOH!!!! Serem kaaannn. Belom lagi pas mau di cek ke dokumen pendukung, engga tau di arsip dimana sama manusia masa lampau nya. Judul ordner beda dengan isi ordner nya. Nahhhh sekalian aja lelepin aku di samudera hindia atau lempar aja aku ke pulau kyoshi trus jadi santapan unagi. Huh. Kalo udah kaya gini kan rasanya pengen berubah jadi avatar aja biar sekalian bertugas menyelamatkan dunia. Engga seberapaaa, ah bayar aja deh STP nya. Huhhh legaa kann, jadi sayur ama ikan yang dikunyah bisa berasa enak dan ga hambar lagi. Tenang rasanya.
Preventing the needless addition of manufacturer/publisher names to article titles is not at all only one random editor's tendentious battle; It is really standard WP exercise. Quite, very few articles are at this kind of names, for 2 motives: It can be seldom beneficial, and it appears like (and encourages) use of WP for marketing functions.
This is actually the concern: As there is very large and reliable en.wp support for Slavonic diacritics for example Đurđa Adlešič, Jānis K. Bērziņš, Jiří Čeřovský, İsmet İnönü, Şükrü Saracoğlu, and Zoran Đinđić and 100% of all simple European bios are at comprehensive diacritics. This is not "astonishing", or "outrageous!" or "censorship" - this is en.wp regular property MOS since Unicode became feasible. You happen to be, I see, a plant editor, and also have contributions highlighted with your Person website page which include Angiosperm Phylogeny Team. Amazing, kudos. But even as an instructional, and 1 who reads Latin, I can be "astonished", and "outraged", by the amount of botany-particular terminology in en.wp's plant article content. How do plant editors expect supporters of Cuban songs (A further hat of the consumer) to barter the many expert product and language in these content articles? Effectively I might guess they don't. So by exactly the same token, every time a WikiProject Vietnam editor produces/interprets an posting using Dục Đức to show the emperor's identify is pronounced Zuck-Duck, instead of Duck-Duck (D with out a strike-by way of is really a Z in Vietnamese) that editor is speaking to a constituency of post audience a number of whom know enough about Vietnam to browse "Zuck-Duck" and not "Duck-Duck", equally as the vintage situation of WP:SNOW help at Chat:Lech_Wałęsa/Archives/2012/April#Requested_move 2005 is there to help some visitors to go through "Va-wen-sa" not "Wo-lee-za".
Wikipedia speak:NPOV might be the best way to go. NPOV is among the Five Pillars and NPOV relates to titles equally as it does to almost everything else. In such a case, it's distinct that Genesis religious narratives are actually titled in another way from all other religious narratives, and that smells just like a violation of NPOV. IMO this arrived about for two reasons: the English-language "dependable sources" we have been utilizing is probably not religiously neutral (if tallied by Google hits they almost certainly are usually not); and lots of en-Wiki editors, perhaps a greater part, come from a Christian or Jewish tradition and consciously or unconsciously Believe "my faith is narrative, Everyone else's religion is fantasy.
Tapi bener juga sih, masuk banget di logika waktu aku baca sekilas tulisan yang udah ga inget lagi gimana persisnya . Intinya, seorang perempuan muda yang sudah Doktor saat ditanya wartawan kenapa beliau masuk islam dan bahkan memutuskan berhijab padahal islam dan hijab itu kuno.
three March at 23:forty seven […] legal method, chiropractors are counting the financial charges of An important backlash resulting from a libel motion which has left the Lord Main Justice “baffled”. What was originally a dispute between the BCA and one particular science writer around no cost speech has become a […]
Wikipedia neutrality signifies presenting sights in trustworthy sources As outlined by their prevalence. It doesn't imply correcting the bias that exists in responsible resources. Due to the fact rs usually do not normally contact the Genesis story a fantasy, neither needs to be.
And because the Gulf of Mexico oil spill creeps closer to Louisiana's coastline, scientists are scrambling fora Alternative. One attainable fix: a large underwater dome..
Does any individual actually, definitely question that trustworthy resources can be found describing any and every theological concept of Creation as a "fantasy"? And though the diploma to which this sort of resources may well so explain just one proposition or the other may range, if 1 goes back much enough one particular might uncover sources considered trusted for his or her time decreeing heliocentric idea to become Phony, contradictory to scripture, and blasphemous.
Valla, vuoj guy kult at Sábme vuojnnu moatten sajen dáj ájgij. Maxida Märak la aktajn Mando Diaoajn dahkam almulasj lávlov Falun 2015 VM:aj.
Ieš mus ledje soames dábálaš joggebuvssat person lean áhčis árben ja boares, lurbe, čuvgesrukses t-skirtu gonnes čužžui “Márkomeannu ‘06”. Muhto ii galgga beatnaga gulgii geahččat, mon goit dovden iežan dego Hulken go vázzen sisa zumba-látnjii.
rse] of wikiprojects having check here WP:OWNy, but I'm undecided I see a real trouble here. Characters and whatnot that begin as comics-centered are Nearly invariably most notable nevertheless in that context, It doesn't matter how well-liked films or TV demonstrates about them are. Go ahead and take character Rick Grimes from The Going for walks Dead. It is really a different but very similar and exact same-named character from the comics vs. the Tv set series, so If your characters need articles or blog posts apart from the comedian sequence and TV series (Uncertain) it wouldn't sound right to hold the Tv set character included within the comics posting or vice versa. I.e., separate posts with their very own disambiguation makes sense. I do not Individually agree with making use of " (comics)" to be a disambiguator, but I have offered up on that (It really is additional objectionable with one thing like " (baseball)", e.
Without a doubt, I regard this discussion as worthwhile. And yes, I definitely hope that nobody would close it as a poll. I am certain that we all "aid" creating the site available to those with visual impairments, but it is important to grasp what challenges basically exist just before we try and address them. —David Levy 21:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It's very well protected at WP:RS. There are numerous factors, and currently being a "e book" isn't really A great deal. Irrespective of whether it is a Major resource or secondary source is also vital. Substantially mainly because it claims at WP:NOR, Key resources, whether or not a peer reviewed write-up within a dependable journal, or perhaps a ballot paper, are quickly misused.