On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Philip Sandifer wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2009, at 11:26 PM, toddmallen wrote:
>>
>
>> There is a tremendous difference between "won't accept just anything"
>> and "won't accept anything". Pulling up a few blogs doesn't mean
>> you're done, and can say "I've got it so
The source is the magazine.
Why would you say there are no source, when you have a magazine as the
source?
In a message dated 1/11/2009 9:35:32 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alva...@gmail.com writes:
Because they don't exist and I'm saying it's from a magazine.
**A Good Cred
It's a joke, right?
--
Alvaro
On 12-01-2009, at 2:37, Philip Sandifer wrote:
> Don't you know you have to cite a dictionary each word?
>
> -Phil
>
> On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:30 AM, Alvaro García wrote:
>
>> Because they don't exist and I'm saying it's from a magazine.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alvaro
>>
>>
My questions are: Who cares how many pages they have deleted? How does
it influence the guy visiting his user page? What's so cool about
deleting pages?
--
Alvaro
On 11-01-2009, at 22:56, "David Gerard" wrote:
> 2009/1/12 :
>
>> Well your "querulous and idiotic" is someone else's "attempt
Don't you know you have to cite a dictionary each word?
-Phil
On Jan 12, 2009, at 12:30 AM, Alvaro García wrote:
> Because they don't exist and I'm saying it's from a magazine.
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
> On 11-01-2009, at 22:34, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Why exactly would your translation not need
Because they don't exist and I'm saying it's from a magazine.
--
Alvaro
On 11-01-2009, at 22:34, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Why exactly would your translation not need sources?
>
>
>
> In a message dated 1/11/2009 4:47:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> alva...@gmail.com writes:
>
> Once I transl
On Jan 11, 2009, at 11:26 PM, toddmallen wrote:
>
> There is a tremendous difference between "won't accept just anything"
> and "won't accept anything". Pulling up a few blogs doesn't mean
> you're done, and can say "I've got it sourced, these horrible people
> just won't accept it!"
"A few blog
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/1/12 :
>
>> Well your "querulous and idiotic" is someone else's "attempt to ensure the
>> source is reliable".
>
>
> Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable
> sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag ab
2009/1/12 :
> Well your "querulous and idiotic" is someone else's "attempt to ensure the
> source is reliable".
Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable
sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on
their user pages - then they just won't a
Well your "querulous and idiotic" is someone else's "attempt to ensure the
source is reliable".
Will Johnson
In a message dated 1/11/2009 5:44:08 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
dger...@gmail.com writes:
It depends how querulous and idiotic they're being, and if they can
get a couple of th
2009/1/12 :
> Establishing that a source is reliable is up to the person adding it, if
> challenged.
> Just like all of our content.
It depends how querulous and idiotic they're being, and if they can
get a couple of their mates to be querulous and idiotic as well.
- d.
__
Establishing that a source is reliable is up to the person adding it, if
challenged.
Just like all of our content.
In a message dated 1/11/2009 4:47:51 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alva...@gmail.com writes:
Inform yourself of who the blogger is before making such statements.
Why exactly would your translation not need sources?
In a message dated 1/11/2009 4:47:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
alva...@gmail.com writes:
Once I translated like 3 paragraphs of a Roger Waters
interview, from Spanish to English, that I read on a magazine and thus
didn't need so
But it's very probable that that person clicked the article to
actually read it/search it, not raise its quality, which would be in
2nd place, if the person happens to know about the topic.
--
Alvaro
On 11-01-2009, at 16:22, "Ian Woollard" wrote:
> 2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
>> That would mess
I don't think this would work properly, sinve don't forget this is an
encyclopedia, not a blog, and it is supposed to have the same content
from everyone; otherwise it would get pretty messed up.
And when you say that only selected articles would appear, you're
saying there would be some arti
Come on guys, stop with that discussion. The first argument was
already invalid.
--
Alvaro
On 11-01-2009, at 0:40, "Gwern Branwen" wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> toddmallen wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 10, 20
Inform yourself of who the blogger is before making such statements.
--
Alvaro
On 10-01-2009, at 15:35, toddmallen wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Philip Sandifer > wrote:
>> The explosion of comments from outright reliable sources (Raph Koster
>> and Richard Bartle, even when blog
Well, there are many articles and statements that can't or don't need
to be verified. Once I translated like 3 paragraphs of a Roger Waters
interview, from Spanish to English, that I read on a magazine and thus
didn't need sources nor they could be put. Two days later, my
substantial contri
On Jan 10, 2009, at 1:59 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> The long term solution for this particular topic is for people to
> start writing books about MUDs. One or two books by reputable
> publishers with a chapter on that MUD would have made deletion
> impossible. One or two anytime in the future w
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> 2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
>> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
>>> 2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
That would mess up linking between articles.
>>>
>>> No, it would create red links, which would help people find the
>>> sub-par a
2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
> On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
>> 2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
>>> That would mess up linking between articles.
>>
>> No, it would create red links, which would help people find the
>> sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
>>
>> Red links are us
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> 2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
>> That would mess up linking between articles.
>
> No, it would create red links, which would help people find the
> sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
>
> Red links are usually considered to be broadly p
2009/1/11 Carcharoth :
> That would mess up linking between articles.
No, it would create red links, which would help people find the
sub-par article and encourage them to improve it.
Red links are usually considered to be broadly positive.
> Carcharoth
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfec
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 3:27 AM, George Herbert
wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM, David Goodman wrote:
>
>> The long term solution for this particular topic is for people to
>> start writing books about MUDs. One or two books by reputable
>> publishers with a chapter on that MUD would h
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ian Woollard wrote:
> Slashdot has an interesting thing where they have ratings for
> postings, with different categories. They then permit you to consider
> certain categories to be more or less important to you (e.g. funny
> postings may be raised up in the ra
On 11/01/2009, White Cat wrote:
> Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/delete - take
> your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can always
> be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the definition of junk
> has been rock solid all along
Even so there exits people who mass remove (redirectify/merge/delete - take
your pick) content. Mass creation isn't that big of a deal. Junk can always
be dealt with. Junk has never been a serious issue as the definition of junk
has been rock solid all along. A problem has emerged when people decid
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:59 PM, David Goodman wrote:
> The long term solution for this particular topic is for people to
> start writing books about MUDs. One or two books by reputable
> publishers with a chapter on that MUD would have made deletion
> impossible. One or two anytime in the fut
28 matches
Mail list logo
