| Revision as of 02:11, 10 August 2010 view sourceSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits →Andrew Montford: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:08, 10 August 2010 view source ChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs)43,032 edits →Andrew Montford: - noNext edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| Chris, could you respond ], please, whether you've read Montford's book? You've made some strong claims about it, claims that I don't think would be made by someone who'd read it, and it's directly relevant to the issue of how we judge expertise. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | Chris, could you respond ], please, whether you've read Montford's book? You've made some strong claims about it, claims that I don't think would be made by someone who'd read it, and it's directly relevant to the issue of how we judge expertise. <font color="blue">]</font> <small><sup><font color="red">]</font><font color="green">]</font></sup></small> 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :No thank you, I already told you that I'm not interested in rehashing the RSN discussion. -- ] (]) 07:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:08, 10 August 2010
Old discussions now at /Archive 1 / /Archive 2 / /Archive 3 / /Archive 4 / /Archive 5 / /Archive 6 / /Archive 7 / /Archive 8 / /Archive 9 / /Archive 10 / /Archive 11 / /Archive 12 / /Archive 13 / /Archive 14 / /Archive 15 / /Archive 16 / /Archive 17 / /Archive 18 / /Archive 19 / /Archive 20 / /Archive 21 / /Archive 22 / /Archive 23 / /Archive 24 / /Archive 25 / /Archive 26 / /Archive 27 / /Archive 28 / /Archive 29 / /Archive 30
Please add new comments below.
Have a barnstar!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| Your comment about the FBI "seal" was rather funny. Thanks for a good laugh! --ANowlin: talk 22:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
Note
- The version you presented as my proposed text was not what I proposed. I've edited your comment to reflect what I actually proposed. Normally I would not edit a comment, but this was clearly a mistake on your part and one other editor had already commented that my version was too long, so I felt it needed to be corrected before others saw it. ATren (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
DYK
It's verified and ready to go. The infobox needs to be filled out a bit though. I'm sure 1935 is the correct date even though it's been changed since then.
Anyway this was in Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 1:
 | Attention Your IP address 163.150.225.201 will be logged by the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc and disseminated publicly. Violators of our Terms of Use can and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, which takes such offenses very seriously. Criminal violations include but are not limited to defacement, knowingly providing false information, and/or uploading copyrighted material without permission from rights holders, any of which can be punished by fines, imprisonment, and a term of supervised release during which you may be restricted by the court from accessing a computer or the Internet. You may also be subject to civil suit by the Wikimedia Foundation, resulting in disgorging of your assets and/or garnishment of wages to satisfy the judgment. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. |
Marcus Qwertyus 20:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- LOL!
- Actually 1941 is the correct date - the seal was created in 1940 and first used in January 1941. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid the character count is still not okay, can you add some more to make it ready for DYK? --Pgallert (talk) 07:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- While I'm not sure that this pc language adds much, this piece of vanity publishing at least indicates the spread of sealgate. Perhaps not worth adding, good luck with the more academic and historical research. . . dave souza, talk 18:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Voluntary CC article restriction
Please consider signing the CC restriction, as explained here. Cla68 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Andrew Montford
Chris, could you respond on Jimbo's page, please, whether you've read Montford's book? You've made some strong claims about it, claims that I don't think would be made by someone who'd read it, and it's directly relevant to the issue of how we judge expertise. SlimVirgin 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- No thank you, I already told you that I'm not interested in rehashing the RSN discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)