In a message dated 7/13/2008 9:46:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
I mean, I do not see how we can justify making the position Ken is
holding here one we demand sources for. It is demonstrably a less
difficult and complex inference than ones we allow by default. I do
not doubt your good faith in asserting otherwise, but unless there's
something I'm missing, you are completely and utterly wrong.>>
--------------------
Ok so he says that the katakana, hiragana, etc. transliteration is
unambiguous, and all I have to do to counter that is to say, "No, it's actually
ambiguous".
And one of those positions is more correct because ? what? Because someone
says so without actually demonstrating any citation whatsoever to the
specific or general statement. Just their say-so.
That's really your position? Because I have no idea from where a position
like that comes. It's certainly not the sort of position to which I'm
accustomed.
Will Johnson
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
In a message dated 7/13/2008 8:40:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
A dispute is at
minimum a *sincere* disagreement, not simply a way of using a rule to make
people jump through hoops.>>
-----------------------------------------------
That there is already a sincere disagreement on this particular issue, has
been shown.
Jumping through hoops is not the same as "Standard Operating Procedure".
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
In a message dated 7/13/2008 10:00:25 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
johnleemk(a)gmail.com writes:
You hit rock bottom in this argument several days back; I suggest you
stop digging.>>>
---------------
Maybe you could repeat what exactly what you think my position is.
I think we are talking across each other, and it would certainly help if you
could simply state what you believe I'm saying first.
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In the course of dealing with some OTRS tickets, I came across
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Here is my question... the info box it red. Is the a common style for
articles to effect the color of the info box, and if so, what mental
connection (socialism = communism) are we feeding our editors by placing
a red flag, and coloring the infobox? Probable POV issue here?
What are the thoughts?
Best,
Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkh6RIwACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtUxjwCfT2bnF0SbWoawVoMQAfV6lfHP
OMAAoJ2kQe7lrrT2AG9FqJ+BnbveIWOT
=li1P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In a message dated 7/13/2008 12:32:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
snowspinner(a)gmail.com writes:
Given that this, by all appearances, is a matter of basic reading
comprehension in a foreign source,>>
--
It isn't a question of reading Phil. That's not the issue here.
When there is conflict on an issue, unless you ascribe bad faith to one
side, then it's never just an issue of basic reading. It's always more involved
than that.
Will Johnson
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
(I hope wikien-l is appropriate for this technical question?)
I have been experimenting with having references in templates. I was a bit
optimistic and tried this variation in a template:
<td><ref name="{{{refname}}}"/>
Where "refname" would be defined on the page with the template embedded,
e.g., as <ref name="Lesch">{{Cite journal | title=Something }}</ref>
This way didn't seem to work. I wonder if there is any other
possibilities. One way would be to use nested templates, e.g.,
{{MyTemplate | field=value | reference = <ref name="Lesch">{{Cite journal
| title=Something }}</ref> }}
However, I would like to avoid nested templates for clarity. Another way
would be just to identify the reference with an external key - the PubMed
identifier, e.g.,
{{MyTemplate | field=value | pmid = 8929413 }}
Any other ideas? Or comments?
/Finn (User:fnielsen)
___________________________________________________________________
Finn Aarup Nielsen, DTU Informatics, Denmark
Lundbeck Foundation Center for Integrated Molecular Brain Imaging
http://www.imm.dtu.dk/~fn/http://nru.dk/staff/fnielsen/
___________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 7/9/2008 2:11:45 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
Kana are unambiguous. There's no way to translate the kana other than
Tessaiga; it's like the Morse Code example. When you say that I've shown "no
evidence", what you mean is that I haven't quoted a source which specifically
says "this word spells out Tessaiga". >>
----------------------
No what I mean is you haven't cited .... anything.
A table, a procedure, a rule, nothing at all except your own words.
You.. are not a source.
Will Johnson
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
In a message dated 7/12/2008 10:05:17 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
arromdee(a)rahul.net writes:
But this is an excellent example of filibustering via insincere request for
sources. Sources should be requested when you really doubt that the source
exists. >>
---------------
Beg your pardon but you don't yet have the power to read my mind.
Claiming that my request was insincere is an inappropriate attack.
By now you should be well-aware of the standards that Wikipedians should be
applying.
Will Johnson
**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)
Reuse of educational content using the GFDL!
http://www.publishersnewswire.com/booknews/2008-07-0711-PNW001.shtml
* First Time in Book Format: Wikipedia Chemistry Knowledge
Knowledge Publications, a leading publisher of energy books, has put
significant portions of the chemistry content of the free online
encyclopedia, Wikipedia.org, in full published, printed book form and
has done so in full compliance with Wikipedia's GNU Free Documentation
License. The book is titled, "The Chemical Educator: for The Chemistry
and Manufacture of Hydrogen" (ISBN: 978-1-60322-067-5).
- d.