This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astrology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Astrology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
External link to "Kepler's discovery" website
John Nevard, please have a look at WP:LINKSTOAVOID, policy on external links. It says to avoid "unverifiable research," which applies to the case of the anonymous website "Kepler's discovery," and also says to avoid links to "personal web pages," which may also apply to "Kepler's discovery." The LYM site which you removed is not anonymous, and was in fact plagiarized in parody form by the "Kepler's discovery" website. --Polly Hedra (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Nothing there applies to the better website that doesn't to the LaRouche website. The better website isn't written in the same kind of bizarre pseudointellectual style that characterizes LaRouche material, and it isn't designed as part of a LaRouche organization recruiting tool, as the current LaRouche focus on Kepler's philosophy apparently is. Despite a typically long LaRouchian diatribe, I can't see any accusations of actual plagiarism in the article you've previously cited as evidence. Just because you think LaRouche, And His, Annointed Ones, are the only barrier, in the way of, the Dark Ages, doesn't mean that anyone who provides a concise explanation of a historical piece of geometry is plagiarising the troof. John Nevard (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why should your personal preferences carry more weight than Wikipedia's rules? BTW for anyone who is actually interested, the documentation on the plagiarism charges re: "Kepler's discovery" is found here. --Polly Hedra (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
That daft article is a particularly good example of a link to avoid. Anyone who isn't trying to use policy in an obstructionist way would realize that the proper, concise, and bizarre and LaRouchian websites the article originally pointed to don't have anything to do with the policies you claimed to draw upon. John Nevard (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Your comment doesn't make any sense. Also,the rules are as they are for good reason. --Polly Hedra (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
No rule requires adding external links, except to official websites and that's not relevant here. Since these links are a source of contention, I suggest that we either add both or remove both. ·:·Will Beback·:· 01:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to me: I went ahead and did it. Antandrus(talk) 01:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)