nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 86:
Line 86: +
→Improvements: Why I reinstated some.
:::: Thanks for the clarification on "negligent". Sometimes the facts favour one side over the other, so won't be "neutral". Your substituted sentence is not neutral either, as it effectively says that the quotes ''are'' fallacious. I think that I could agree with taking the footnote out completely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Thanks for the clarification on "negligent". Sometimes the facts favour one side over the other, so won't be "neutral". Your substituted sentence is not neutral either, as it effectively says that the quotes ''are'' fallacious. I think that I could agree with taking the footnote out completely. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:13, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Very fair! I've removed it so you can inspect it. I appreciate your civility. I hope I've made the distinction quoting and quote-mining clear.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:16, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::Very fair! I've removed it so you can inspect it. I appreciate your civility. I hope I've made the distinction quoting and quote-mining clear.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 00:16, 4 March 2008 (EST)
:::::: You removed more than I meant (although of course I was agreeing to ''your'' proposal, so I guess that you removed what ''you'' meant!). I had no problem with the bit that I've reinstated; the footnote was an ''example'' of that, not a reference for that, so in effect the statement was unreferenced anyway, and it remains so, but I doubt that anyone really disputes it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:25, 4 March 2008 (EST)