| Revision as of 04:28, 24 February 2011 editScray (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,806 edits →Multiple accounts limited to separate topic sets, cont.: not a big difference← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:30, 24 February 2011 edit undoBittergrey (talk | contribs)2,596 edits →Fresh start: -maybeNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| In the interest of precluding further discussion of matters unrelated to this page, I have archived everything. Anyone who is still interested in the page, please revisit the current version with fresh eyes and suggest improvements, point out areas they think are acceptable, or even great, and just generally focus on how we can improve ]. For instance, I have a possibly-related article stub/essay I wrote on pharmanoia (]). WAID mentioned it might find a home here. Does anyone else agree? Can anyone see a neat (as in simple and tidy) way of integrating that content or otherwise improving on it? ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 04:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC) | In the interest of precluding further discussion of matters unrelated to this page, I have archived everything. Anyone who is still interested in the page, please revisit the current version with fresh eyes and suggest improvements, point out areas they think are acceptable, or even great, and just generally focus on how we can improve ]. For instance, I have a possibly-related article stub/essay I wrote on pharmanoia (]). WAID mentioned it might find a home here. Does anyone else agree? Can anyone see a neat (as in simple and tidy) way of integrating that content or otherwise improving on it? ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 04:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :] looks reasonably good, but seems to be more industry-focused instead of user-focused like WP:MEDCOI. One also deals with mainly off-wiki beliefs while the other is mainly an application of wiki policy. These two contrasts don't mean they can't be combined, but it might be more than just copying and pasting. Thanks for posting the invite to be bold on a user space essay: I'm tempted to add spaces between the claim/reality pairs for clarity. ] (]) 04:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Multiple accounts limited to separate topic sets, cont. == | == Multiple accounts limited to separate topic sets, cont. == | ||
Revision as of 04:30, 24 February 2011
 Archives |
Fresh start
In the interest of precluding further discussion of matters unrelated to this page, I have archived everything. Anyone who is still interested in the page, please revisit the current version with fresh eyes and suggest improvements, point out areas they think are acceptable, or even great, and just generally focus on how we can improve WP:MEDCOI. For instance, I have a possibly-related article stub/essay I wrote on pharmanoia (User:WLU/Pharmanoia). WAID mentioned it might find a home here. Does anyone else agree? Can anyone see a neat (as in simple and tidy) way of integrating that content or otherwise improving on it? WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/complex 04:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- User:WLU/Pharmanoia looks reasonably good, but seems to be more industry-focused instead of user-focused like WP:MEDCOI. One also deals with mainly off-wiki beliefs while the other is mainly an application of wiki policy. These two contrasts don't mean they can't be combined, but it might be more than just copying and pasting. Thanks for posting the invite to be bold on a user space essay: I'm tempted to add spaces between the claim/reality pairs for clarity. BitterGrey (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Multiple accounts limited to separate topic sets, cont.
Previously proposed was the change "You might be eligible for two separate accounts if you want to separate your work-related editing from non-work-related editing" would convey more detail if replaced with "...if you want to separate your editing in work-related topics from editing in non-work-related topics." Would others like to comment on the proposed language, or propose other language that might be more clear and detailed? BitterGrey (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- The current wording is more compact, yours may be slightly easier to parse except that it's longer. A wash, in my opinion. -- Scray (talk) 04:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)