1911 eb造句

• However, like the 1911 EB, it is dated.
• I understand that the 1911 EB is out of copyright.
• Okay, that sorts things through WRT the 1911 EB, but how about the other stuff?
• Given that all the 1911 EB authors are dead, I might have a problem finding this out.
• Re Improv, I think we should definitely keep the 1911 EB listed eternally as a reference, even if the tag is removed.
• Since the 1911 EB is already online, it's just redundant to reuse its text as the sole source of an article.
• Is it general policy at Wikipedia that information in the public domain ( such as the 1911 EB ) can be used without quoting or citing it?
• It seems to be very largely 1911 EB material, it has no references and it's generally poor, especially for such a well-known subject.
• And don't forget the scanning / OCR errors of the internet version of the 1911 EB . andy 20 : 13, 1 Dec 2003 ( UTC)
• I'm guessing 1911 EB would be "'at least "'twice the amount here in Ireland ( but probably a lot more ! ).
• But what I'm trying to find out is if there is any remote reason why the 1911 EB would have said " Stanovoi mountains " for the Anadyr River.
• Wikipedia " encourages " people to lift text from the 1911 EB . Surely we should say that people who do so have a duty to check its content?
• The single cite doesn't support the definition given ( not surprising since its the 1911 EB and therefore predates WW1 ) .-- talk ) 23 : 28, 7 February 2011 ( UTC)
• Most of the content would match to stub articles on Wikipedia and we would like to investigate whether it would be appropriate to add a similar tag line to the bottom as we have for 1911 EB material.
• :: : : : I think all historical and economic facts should be checked and double-checked if you are citing from the 1911 EB, in case public and learned opinion has changed about the periods prior to 1909-1911, and new facts have emerged since the original publication.
• As far as Tallage is concerned, it's not a term much used by my sources . . . I'll note that our Tallage article has no inline citations, and appears to derive mainly from the 1911 EB, a 1895 article, and the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901-1905.
• For what it's worth, the original article came from the 1911 EB, but the original anonymous author ( or importer ) must have followed the link from the list page itself, which was created ( with the Theophilus II link ) back in 2001 by a user who hasn't been around for three years.
• Read the 1911 EB's article on Georges Clemenceau, for example . ( At one point, Wikipedia also had a copy of 1911 EB's article on the then-current sultan of Morocco, which talked about him as if he was still alive . . . ) talk ) 14 : 32, 9 April 2011 ( UTC)
• Read the 1911 EB's article on Georges Clemenceau, for example . ( At one point, Wikipedia also had a copy of 1911 EB's article on the then-current sultan of Morocco, which talked about him as if he was still alive . . . ) talk ) 14 : 32, 9 April 2011 ( UTC)
• :Something that old is definitely in the public domain and, legally speaking, material could be included into Wikipedia . ( See Wikipedia : Public domain resources . ) Keep in mind of course that old material ( including the 1911 EB ) can be problematic : information is out of date and needs to be cross-checked with more recent sources, strange points of view abound which need NPOVing.