Group 3 Dispute Results: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* i think the dispute is fine, my only concern is that all 5 of us have to comment individually according to the assignment, which makes for an unsightly/ungainly dispute resolution process. I think we should probably coordinate our responses so that we have some hope of resolution. [[User:Jumpingdeeps|Jumpingdeeps]] 18:35, 6 January 2008 (EST) | * i think the dispute is fine, my only concern is that all 5 of us have to comment individually according to the assignment, which makes for an unsightly/ungainly dispute resolution process. I think we should probably coordinate our responses so that we have some hope of resolution. [[User:Jumpingdeeps|Jumpingdeeps]] 18:35, 6 January 2008 (EST) | ||
* Looks like a good dispute to me, too, but I'll keep an eye out for others. Re: coordinating responses, I agree that it would probably be more effective if we all chime in with the same view (provided we all agree on that view). I also don't think we need to wait on other responses before posting our own, since it seems they are seeking input from any interested editors. [[User:Amehra|Amehra]] 19:15, 6 January 2008 (EST) | * Looks like a good dispute to me, too, but I'll keep an eye out for others. Re: coordinating responses, I agree that it would probably be more effective if we all chime in with the same view (provided we all agree on that view). I also don't think we need to wait on other responses before posting our own, since it seems they are seeking input from any interested editors. [[User:Amehra|Amehra]] 19:15, 6 January 2008 (EST) | ||
* Jen -- thanks for finding a good dispute. I spent about an hour earlier today looking for something interesting, and got hopelessly lost in all the acronyms & policy. Unfortunately, I have plans with my wife tonight and won't be around much, but will take a closer read and post some comments tomorrow morning. Incidentally, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if we comment individually; however, if the group feels that we should formulate a single position, I'm game as well. [[User:Rlumpau|Rlumpau]] 21:07, 6 January 2008 (EST) | |||
Revision as of 22:07, 6 January 2008
- I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamic_language would be an interesting dispute to get involved in--active and juicy. I'll post a comment on the talk page. If you guys think another topic would be better just post it here or by email and I'll participate later tonight (11pm-ish?). I totally forgot about this until now and promised by boyfriend I'd go salsa dancing-- sorry! Jendawson 17:44, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- i think the dispute is fine, my only concern is that all 5 of us have to comment individually according to the assignment, which makes for an unsightly/ungainly dispute resolution process. I think we should probably coordinate our responses so that we have some hope of resolution. Jumpingdeeps 18:35, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Looks like a good dispute to me, too, but I'll keep an eye out for others. Re: coordinating responses, I agree that it would probably be more effective if we all chime in with the same view (provided we all agree on that view). I also don't think we need to wait on other responses before posting our own, since it seems they are seeking input from any interested editors. Amehra 19:15, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Jen -- thanks for finding a good dispute. I spent about an hour earlier today looking for something interesting, and got hopelessly lost in all the acronyms & policy. Unfortunately, I have plans with my wife tonight and won't be around much, but will take a closer read and post some comments tomorrow morning. Incidentally, I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if we comment individually; however, if the group feels that we should formulate a single position, I'm game as well. Rlumpau 21:07, 6 January 2008 (EST)