On 8/2/07, Erica fangaili@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/2/07, Erica fangaili@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