Enter a page name to see changes on pages linked to or from that page. (To see members of a category, enter Category:Name of category). Changes to pages on your Watchlist are shown in bold with a green bullet. See more at Help:Related changes.
diffhistWikipedia:Neutral point of view 05:42−9 Dominic Mayerstalkcontribs (→Due and undue weight: Of course, he was talking about the sources, not the editors. That is so obvious from the context, but fine, we can add "sources". It is obviously exactly what he meant. But, reliability is associated with ways to reject sources that were not considered at the time. If the argument is only a possible confusion with editors, then reliability is not at all needed.)Tag: Reverted
diffhistWikipedia:Neutral point of view 03:36+20 Mathglottalkcontribs (Undid revision 1226459334 by Dominic Mayers. In Wales's 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list, it is clear that he was talking about reliable sources and not about Wikipedia editors. The example concerns a physics question, and is about what "mainstream physics texts" and the "majority of prominent physicists" (i.e. RSes) say about the question, and a view "held by an extremely small minority"... "doesn't belong in Wikipedia".)Tags: UndoReverted
14 June 2024
diffhistWikipedia:Manual of Style 23:25+1 Trovatoretalkcontribs (→Plurals: according to Wiktionary, it would indeed be excursī used as a participle, but as a noun it's fourth declension and has plural excursūs. Since a lot of people are familiar with Latin plurals ending in i but not so many with the fourth declension, it might be better to pick a different example)