Objective PET For Schools Practice Test Booklet With Answers With Audio CD. 25
CLICK HERE ===== https://urlgoal.com/2tf130
Firstly few can sit in judgment as to what makes a \"religious body\" notable or not (not talking about the usual requirements of good sources) so that if a church or synagogue or mosque has a small membership, or may even be defunct, yet it if it has, or had had, a long and recorded history, it cannot be called \"not notable\" by any standard. Secondly, it is basically impossible to differentiate between a \"religious building and sanctuary\" and its mission, or conversely, sometimes it is it's mission that makes the sanctuary notable. This is, after all religion we are talking about, and not a franchise to sell coffee drinks. The fact that Starbucks coffee is sold in a building does not make the building into a \"sanctuary\" of anything, but if a building has housed a religious place or person it often may become an eternal shrine and holy place important to that religion. This should be quite obvious. Thirdly, as for User Rossami (talk contribs)'s allegations, and others who did not look up what I inserted, I never stated that \"sole jurisdiction over determining whether and in what level of detail Wikipedia ought to cover a topic\" but this is what I stated there, articles \"need to be assessed by expert editors familiar with each type of religious body concerned, commencing with the Wikiproject of each religion in question\" which is very different. After all the sum and value of Wikipedia are its editors and nominal experts and writers on topics, and NOT the people who sit around making up rules that could stand in the way of helping Wikipedia grow. Bureaucratic powers should be used to encourage MORE and NOT less editing and contributions. And sure, when the situation calls for it, let's have discussion and votes but not rely solely on veto powers of \"shoot on sight\" to blow incipient articles out of the water without ever getting input from the experienced editors in Wikiprojects. No-one can claim that all of Wikipedia's editors or admins are experts in everything and the purpose of the individual Wikiperojects is to enable editors with expertise in fields to express themselves and they at least should be called in for \"second opnions\" at a minimum. Admins MUST resist the temptation of acting haughtily and arrogantly and must realize that they too are editors that must seek consensus from other editors who care and have knowldege about other subjects. Editors at Wikiprojects need not be feared and denigrated (why does Wikipedia encourage and have ethem then, are they \"kindergarten playpens\") and Wikipedia has enough mechanisms to deal with any so-called conflicts of interests if and when they arise. No need to fight ghosts and set up non-existent strawmen. By the way, whose \"interests\" and what if the \"conflict\" is not something that can be defined quickly or simply Fourthly, no-one is suggesting that the religious bodies should get a \"free pass\" but neither should they be lumped in with categories that they do not match or reflect. It is highly surprising that User Shirahadasha (talk contribs) can baldly state: \"Although I doubt a blanket exemption for religious organizations is within the permitted range, special criteria analagous to the ones Wikipedia has for schools, pornographic actors, sports figures, and other high-traffic categories would be possible\" when (a) no \"blanket exemption\" is being sought nor suggested, (b) yet admits that there is a need for other categories that have \"high traffic\" and (c) and be so cavalier and downgrading of religious bodies while at the same time elevating on a pedestal \"schools, pornographic actors, sports figures\". Totally absurd, and most certainly insulting to religions to which the vast majority of the human race belongs. Fifthly, User Aboutmovies (talk contribs) makes false allegations by saying \"Not every religious group nor every church is notable, same as not every politician or company or building is notable. Allowing every religious organization a free pass would allow for 'Bob's Church and Hot Dog Stand' to become an article without any RS\" when no-one is suggesting that in any way. Plenty of these kinds of religious quackery get deleted, but at the same time it is very easy for openly atheist or anti-religious editors or admins to just throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater via prods and hasty deletes of key and notable articles when they bump into something like synagogue stubs or brief articles about genuine small churches or mosques that are indeed notable in their own right and they would have found this out only if they had first bothered to contact the active editors at relevant Wikiprojects who know what is junk and what is not because they deal with the topic and are sensitive to it. Often, contacting creators of articles alone is not enough, as they may have left Wikipedia or are away for a long time. My experience at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism is that when any editor has any sort of question about any subject relating to Jews and Judaism, there is always a response and guidance or advice is offered. Usually such Wikiprojects have a number of admins involved as well so that there are more levels of competence involved than just that of the Wikiproject's subject matter. Sixthly, how ridiculous is it to say that \"if they make the newspapers they are notable\" as does User Aboutmovies (talk contribs) (religious bodies are not reviewed in newspapers like movies by the way, in case you wish to know, if anything the media is scornful of religion and seizes any opportunity to mock and undermine anything to do with religious life anywhere.) In any case, this is the Internet age now, Wikipedia is a digital medium and there are digital resources available about everything and more coming online every minute. Sure it's nice if a newspaper says something about a synagogue or church, but that is not going to the heart of the matter in any way whatsoever. A church or synagogue may have been in a community for a hundred or two hundred years (longer than the movies or papers that get such \"notable\" coverage in Wikipedia), and played a critical and central role in the histories of those communities. There are books, essays and personal accounts of these things. As always WP:CITE and WP:V are vital. There are only thirteen million Jews in the world and about half are in the USA, and less Hindus in the USA, so does each synagogue or ashram have to produce Earth-shattering news to be regarded as \"notable\" Nope! Because it has nothing to do with the purpose of a synagogue or ashram or its role in Jewish or Hindu life to get into the papers or TV shows. There may have been great religious teachings revealed there. Famous rabbis may have served there. They were maybe the conerstones of that community's rise (and fall). Similarly for all religious bodies. Religion is not commerce and it's not show business it has its own criteria and definitions as does any unique field. By example, rocket science is not the same as soccer, and never shall the twain meet. What makes a scientist and a laboratory notable is not the same as what makes a soccer player or soccer field notable. Does anyone question all the soccer players and teams that are on Wikipedia Nope! Finally, to repeat, no-one is asking for or stated \"exemptions\" for anything. On the contrary, the request is being made that Wikipedia must reach DEEPER INTO ITSELF and use its own editors and experts in the fields usually to be found in Wikiprojects and that their views be actively solicited or that a blanket rule be drawn up, that if an article or stub or category or pic or template is brought up for deletion in ANY field, that a notice be placed either on that subject's deletion notice board or on its related Wikiproject and preferably both so that ALL currently active editors who care and KNOW something about each and every subject be allowed to have a say and contribute to what is essentially their area of expertise and provide their professional opinion and input about the intended action to delete -- and that not doing so would a violation of some sort. Sincerely. IZAK (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe your not really understanding things here. We aren't saying just any old blog can be used, only those by those who worked on the project or who have an academic background that would give them credibility in discussions. This does not mean it will meet notability via the 3-prong test if all the blog says, \"I was inspired when watching a man walk down the street.\" That really isn't what we're talking about here. We're talking about a level of commentary equivalent to that seen on a DVD commentary. And before you say anything about vetting process, blogs have to be vetted are generally vetted in the same way as blogs; they just can't put anything they have signed an NDA for without permission and can't post anything illegal, beyond that they're basically the same. Hell, someone could just upload the commentary on their blog space with the exact same footage instead of a DVD if they wanted to do a video blog, which i forsee as probability in the future.ăăăȘă 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
In response to Randomran's comments above, my view is that the test for \"Importance within the fictional work\" is not a real test at all, as it is too vague and subjective to be proven or disproven, which is why I don't think this prong will stand the test of time. In my view, the real test is real-world coverage, which requires a good indicator that an element of fiction is important both within and outside of the context of a fictional work.For instance, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that all fictional characters are important within a fictional work, otherwise the author would not have gone to the effort of creating them in the first place; at the same time, it is impossible to prove that a fictional character is unimportant in the same way it is impossible to prove that character is non-notable. On top of that, the term \"Importance within the fictional work\" is open to personal intepretation; there are as many reasons to presume a character is important as there are editors' opnions. This is illustrated by the arguments suggested in the guideline itself, such as \"it's the debut episode\", \"the character appears in every episode\" to which you can add any number of additional assertions such as \"she is the only character with red hair\", \"the episode starts in an unexpected fashion\". My point is that any real-world statement about a fictional element can be interpreted as an indicator of importance within the fictional work.In the long run, I can forsee that the test for \"Importance within the fictional work \" will be edited out, as it has no practical application. Where the strength of this guideline lays in defining what is acceptable in terms of what is good quality real-world coverage. If we are going to have a three-pronged test, then it should be focused on identifying what makes for good quality real-world coverage along these lines: (1) Is the coverage non-trivial Does the real-world coverage provide more information other than credit for its creation Is there some indicator that the fictional element is important outside of the fictional work These are just suggestions, but I feel they provide a more substantial test than is currently proposed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 153554b96e
https://www.ckm.ai/forum/general-discussions/propellerheadsreasonv80hybridwinmac-new-fulledition
https://www.huseyinguzel.net/forum/isimsiz-kategori-2/dwg-trueview-2011-32-bit-download-torrent
https://www.beateatsfoodtruck.com/forum/welcome-to-the-forum/mediatek-mt-6250-56