Talk:Research:claim corruption: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
(ok it'll only be worse to do later, applying attribution standard ... (by Richard Chilton)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Suggest standard: To [[Research:claim corruption]] is a [[verb phrase]] describing what a user might want to do in one click as a [[command verb]], but [[claims of corruption]] is a [[noun phrase]] for the result). | Suggest standard: To [[Research:claim corruption]] is a [[verb phrase]] describing what a user might want to do in one click as a [[command verb]], but [[claims of corruption]] is a [[noun phrase]] for the result). | ||
It may also be time to stop carrying on a dialogue in the [[page history]] that will make little sense later on when [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] is proven true and [[end Wikimedia|this nonsense is all over]]. AT that time, sticking up for them and against the analysis of [[Wikipedia (Richard Chilton)]] will appear very foolish. | It may also be time to stop carrying on a dialogue in the [[page history]] that will make little sense later on when [[alleged Wikimedia corruption]] is proven true and [[end Wikimedia|this nonsense is all over]]. AT that time, sticking up for them and against the analysis of [[Wikipedia (by Richard Chilton)]] will appear very foolish. | ||
Latest revision as of 21:52, 9 September 2004
Suggest standard: To Research:claim corruption is a verb phrase describing what a user might want to do in one click as a command verb, but claims of corruption is a noun phrase for the result).
It may also be time to stop carrying on a dialogue in the page history that will make little sense later on when alleged Wikimedia corruption is proven true and this nonsense is all over. AT that time, sticking up for them and against the analysis of Wikipedia (by Richard Chilton) will appear very foolish.