Objective PET For Schools Practice Test Booklet With Answers With Audio CD. 25

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 d=
efunct, yet it if it has, or had had, a long and recorded history, it canno=
t be called "not notable" by any standard. Secondly, it is basically imposs=
ible to differentiate between a "religious building and sanctuary" and its =
mission, or conversely, sometimes it is it's mission that makes the sanctua=
ry notable. This is, after all religion we are talking about, and not a fra=
nchise to sell coffee drinks. The fact that Starbucks coffee is sold in a b=
uilding 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 ete=
rnal 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 juris=
diction over determining whether and in what level of detail Wikipedia ough=
t to cover a topic" but this is what I stated there, articles "need to be a=
ssessed by expert editors familiar with each type of religious body concern=
ed, commencing with the Wikiproject of each religion in question" which is =
very different. After all the sum and value of Wikipedia are its editors an=
d 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. Bure=
aucratic powers should be used to encourage MORE and NOT less editing and c=
ontributions. And sure, when the situation calls for it, let's have discuss=
ion and votes but not rely solely on veto powers of "shoot on sight" to blo=
w incipient articles out of the water without ever getting input from the e=
xperienced editors in Wikiprojects. No-one can claim that all of Wikipedia'=
s editors or admins are experts in everything and the purpose of the indivi=
dual 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 arrogan=
tly and must realize that they too are editors that must seek consensus fro=
m other editors who care and have knowldege about other subjects. Editors a=
t Wikiprojects need not be feared and denigrated (why does Wikipedia encour=
age and have ethem then, are they "kindergarten playpens"?) and Wikipedia h=
as enough mechanisms to deal with any so-called conflicts of interests if a=
nd when they arise. No need to fight ghosts and set up non-existent strawme=
n. By the way, whose "interests" and what if the "conflict" is not somethin=
g that can be defined quickly or simply? Fourthly, no-one is suggesting tha=
t 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 s=
urprising that User Shirahadasha (talk  contribs) can baldly state: "Althou=
gh I doubt a blanket exemption for religious organizations is within the pe=
rmitted range, special criteria analagous to the ones Wikipedia has for sch=
ools, pornographic actors, sports figures, and other high-traffic categorie=
s would be possible" when (a) no "blanket exemption" is being sought nor su=
ggested, (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 bod=
ies while at the same time elevating on a pedestal "schools, pornographic a=
ctors, sports figures". Totally absurd, and most certainly insulting to rel=
igions to which the vast majority of the human race belongs. Fifthly, User =
Aboutmovies (talk  contribs) makes false allegations by saying "Not every r=
eligious group nor every church is notable, same as not every politician or=
 company or building is notable. Allowing every religious organization a fr=
ee pass would allow for 'Bob's Church and Hot Dog Stand' to become an artic=
le without any RS" when no-one is suggesting that in any way. Plenty of the=
se 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 an=
d notable articles when they bump into something like synagogue stubs or br=
ief articles about genuine small churches or mosques that are indeed notabl=
e in their own right and they would have found this out only if they had fi=
rst bothered to contact the active editors at relevant Wikiprojects who kno=
w what is junk and what is not because they deal with the topic and are sen=
sitive to it. Often, contacting creators of articles alone is not enough, a=
s they may have left Wikipedia or are away for a long time. My experience a=
t Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism is that when any editor has any sort o=
f question about any subject relating to Jews and Judaism, there is always =
a response and guidance or advice is offered. Usually such Wikiprojects hav=
e a number of admins involved as well so that there are more levels of comp=
etence 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 no=
table" 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 m=
ock 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 c=
hurch, but that is not going to the heart of the matter in any way whatsoev=
er. 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" co=
verage in Wikipedia), and played a critical and central role in the histori=
es of those communities. There are books, essays and personal accounts of t=
hese 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 teach=
ings revealed there. Famous rabbis may have served there. They were maybe t=
he conerstones of that community's rise (and fall). Similarly for all relig=
ious 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 mak=
es a scientist and a laboratory notable is not the same as what makes a soc=
cer player or soccer field notable. Does anyone question all the soccer pla=
yers and teams that are on Wikipedia? Nope! Finally, to repeat, no-one is a=
sking 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 de=
letion notice board or on its related Wikiproject and preferably both so th=
at 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 essentiall=
y their area of expertise and provide their professional opinion and input =
about the intended action to delete -- and that not doing so would a violat=
ion 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 discuss=
ions. This does not mean it will meet notability via the 3-prong test if al=
l 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 lev=
el of commentary equivalent to that seen on a DVD commentary. And before yo=
u 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 si=
gned an NDA for without permission and can't post anything illegal, beyond =
that they're basically the same. Hell, someone could just upload the commen=
tary on their blog space with the exact same footage instead of a DVD if th=
ey wanted to do a video blog, which i forsee as probability in the future.=
=E3=81=98=E3=82=93=E3=81=AA=E3=81=84 18:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Objective PET For Schools Practice Test Booklet With Answers With Audio CD.=
 25
Download Zip https://nycokforpi.blogspot.com/?download=3D2wIQsu



In response to Randomran's comments above, my view is that the test for "Im=
portance 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 charac=
ters 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 ti=
me, 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 to=
p of that, the term "Importance within the fictional work" is open to perso=
nal intepretation; there are as many reasons to presume a character is impo=
rtant as there are editors' opnions. This is illustrated by the arguments s=
uggested in the guideline itself, such as "it's the debut episode", "the ch=
aracter appears in every episode" to which you can add any number of additi=
onal assertions such as "she is the only character with red hair", "the epi=
sode starts in an unexpected fashion". My point is that any real-world stat=
ement about a fictional element can be interpreted as an indicator of impor=
tance within the fictional work.
In the long run, I can forsee that the test for "Importance within the fict=
ional 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 thr=
ee-pronged test, then it should be focused on identifying what makes for go=
od quality real-world coverage along these lines: (1) Is the coverage non-t=
rivial? Does the real-world coverage provide more information other than cr=
edit for its creation? Is there some indicator that the fictional element i=
s important outside of the fictional work? These are just suggestions, but =
I feel they provide a more substantial test than is currently proposed. --G=
avin Collins (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 eebf2c3492