On 8/2/07, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/2/07, Erica <fangaili(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
So geni, do you just argue for the hell of it?
Seriously, what are you
trying to accomplish with the above responses?
The first two comments are just low level humor.
No, actually it's calling you on your pointless arguing. Kamryn's
message is that we should be working on the encyclopedia. You say that
there are 150 articles that are hard protected-- so what? You are
arguing some issue that is not relevant here.
You might want to try
being more constructive, or just keep your mouth shut.
The fact is that attempts to sweep the debate under the carpet so far
have proved unhelpful. I would suggest that further attempts by almost
any method including the one in the opening email of the tread are
unwise due to the risk of people finding them patronizing.
Is that dirrect enough this time?
--
geni
That is more direct, yes. By arguing about off-topic points (like
whether we can do something about an editor being a secret agent) you
did not put forth your opinion clearly.
Erica
What does "hard protected" mean? And "soft protected?" Is the
latter
when a page is protected from IP editing?
KP