Hi Antonio, > Some rules I've learned: > Mailing list can't be used as reliable source :-(
We should try. We have nothing to hide and we're not lying, so I believe all we need to do is put convincing sources behind our statements. F.e. the guy deleted the word "fast". Now, we have lots and lots of speed comparisons with Clipper, Xbase++ and xhb, so the back it up, we can just link to such a result posted on the mailing list. And see what happens. In general I agree with the notion of backing up claims from as many (possibly external) sources as possible. Harbour is small community, so finding "external" source is not easy, so we should use what we have. F.e. you can quote speed comparison posted by xhb developers on xhb mailing list. F.e. this thread: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.xharbour.devel/3012 > Non-english sources too It should be okay if linked through Google Translate. > WP has so many rules, some of them are ambiguous and contradictory. It's > party to an "wikipedia's attorney" shows and make trouble where everything > walks ok. > > You missed my discussion about newsgroup citation. He deleted the citation. > He shows me the rule. Ok. But I challenge him to deleted same source about > Linux History where Linus call for help on kernel development. He runs away. I've also jumped to lots of links pointing to mail archives. Which means we should try and if the pointed article seems reasonable, I think it will be ok. We should see anyway. > The Harbour article have so many problems he not stated... The biggest > problem is he pick bureaucratic problems, not content problems. Of course, because he probably uses some sort of automated tool to do rough verification on articles which received heavy changes in short time period. Such tool will look for keywords and hard rules which are just not noticed or enforced when coming in small steps. At least so I imagine. > Yworo wants delete Harbour article in favor of xBase article. If Harbour > article is superfluous, thousands and thousands articles are superfluous too, > but this is not a argument, there is a rule denying this type of argument. > Nobody fix the same problem in "famous" articles because there are too many > "forces" to fight against. So he should also delete Clipper, xHarbour, Xbase++ and FlagShip compiler articles as well. This is plain nonsense, just ignore it, or point him these articles. A general xBase article is good idea, but the details are always put on distinct pages. > In summary, who knows the WP process, knows WP is a place to people expresses > power. The majority WP rules are contrary to original intent of WP when Jimbo > creates it. > > BTW, this post has the best value for me because I knew about the MT debate > :-) I think we need create an index to valuable posts like msg10164. Yes, absolutely. Brgds, Viktor _______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list (attachment size limit: 40KB) Harbour@harbour-project.org http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
