User talk:Wbfergus/Sandbox/NOR2

This version

This version differs primarily in reference to the "Sources" section. This version uses Vassyana's "Sources proposal" instead of the "primary", "secondary" and "tertiary" definitions. wbfergus 15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Not an appeals court, not a venue for scholarly discussion"

Which surely is too wordy, surely uses the wrong words someplace (perhaps "early" or "seminal," perhaps anywhere.) It's also quite redundant. These combine to make the material very appropriate for gleeful editing, chopping, replacing, etc. Particularly in a policy I'd think that the goal would be to use as few words as possible, consistent with adequately communicating the policy. There appears to be a need/desire for the policy to speak more plainly on the issue I've attempted to cover. If that need is to be satisfied these words are submitted as an attempt to do that. If satisfaction results from this process that is the important outcome and if every one of these words ends up "on the cutting room floor" that must have been their destiny. (Yeah, OK, that's a movie-making metaphor.) --Minasbeede 00:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]