55:
source, would you then consider that legitimate? Is this Wiki policy? Just like if a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing; I can also logically state that a foolish thing stated by one individual is still a foolish thing. Now you may consider that OR; but, it is proven axiomatically, whether it is said by you, or by me. So again, re-iterate your stance, and supply additional incentive for me to regard your edit. It's not like I'm not trying here. I question your understanding of axiomatic proof. The proof is in the statement. If it is observably factual, then the truth exist by virtue of being true.
79:
54:
What is it about OR that's unacceptable; you say it like I'm unable, or do not have the professional background to provide OR. So, your statement, in and of itself, doesn't make me feel as if it shouldn't be included. I could write an article, which then bought and printed/posted from a 3rd party
35:
Has the practice been cited in any third-party sources? OR=original research; just citing the YouTube video in question isn't enough. Now, if you find an article in another publication (a news outlet, a trade journal) that says the same thing, and cite that - that wouldn't be original research.
58:
At this point; for all I know, you're just a paid lackey by Warner
Chappell sent to keep unfavorable news from appearing on their Wiki page; at which point, I would no longer regard your opinion as substantiated and seek approval for a lock in, or permanent placement elsewhere.
43:
128:
37:
16:
Please leave any comments about any edits here, at the bottom of the page. Thanks you for your consideration. --
85:
Hello, and welcome to
Knowledge. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to
113:
142:
138:
120:
102:
98:
90:
86:
131:
60:
17:
101:, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please
106:
109:, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
146:
68:
49:
25:
137:
ANN scored at 0.881342 on 2014-03-07T04:18:09+00:00 . Thank you.
77:
89:
has been undone by an automated computer program called
124:
119:
The following is the log entry regarding this message:
8:
7:
14:
1:
112:For help, take a look at the
69:09:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
50:05:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
163:
97:ClueBot NG makes very few
26:13:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
147:04:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
64:
21:
82:
39:Ser Amantio di Nicolao
81:
83:
45:Lo dicono a Signa.
154:
80:
40:
162:
161:
157:
156:
155:
153:
152:
151:
121:Quantum gravity
87:Quantum gravity
78:
76:
48:
38:
33:
31:Warner Chappell
12:
11:
5:
160:
158:
150:
149:
117:
110:
107:report it here
75:
72:
42:
32:
29:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
159:
148:
144:
140:
136:
133:
130:
126:
122:
118:
115:
111:
108:
104:
103:read about it
100:
96:
95:
94:
92:
88:
73:
71:
70:
66:
62:
56:
52:
51:
47:
46:
41:
30:
28:
27:
23:
19:
134:
114:introduction
84:
57:
53:
44:
34:
15:
139:ClueBot NG
91:ClueBot NG
74:March 2014
129:Cyberchip
61:Cyberchip
18:Cyberchip
99:mistakes
125:changed
143:talk
123:was
65:talk
22:talk
135:(t)
132:(u)
127:by
145:)
105:,
93:.
67:)
36:--
24:)
141:(
116:.
63:(
20:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.