Wikipedia is always improving, and quickly Options

[thekohser]

Just a sticky thread where we might post problems or errors in articles that would'a / should'a / could'a been fixed, but haven't.

You'd think after more than 26 months and about 3,800 page views, somebody would have noticed "Woody Wodpecker".

[culeaker]

Thekohser: You know, we aren't all bloody fools on Wikipedia. Some of us have a pretty shrewd suspicion which accounts are doing the sort of paid advertising you claim to be doing. But WP:AGF we usually leave those accounts alone if they appear superficially to behave themselves.

Now, if one of those accounts were to fix errors in articles rather than parade those errors here and get others to fix them, that account would get brownie points, and people would be even more inclined to invoke WP:AGF.

I do hope you take this advice in the spirit it was given.

[thekohser]

Now, if one of those accounts were to fix errors in articles rather than parade those errors here and get others to fix them...

So, you're saying a banjo is a person?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Why don't you send me a short list of "those accounts", and I'll let you know which ones are mine. Just for the record, I don't do "advertising" -- never have. I do "Wikipedia articles".

[Collect]

Now, if one of those accounts were to fix errors in articles rather than parade those errors here and get others to fix them...

So, you're saying a banjo is a person?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

Why don't you send me a short list of "those accounts", and I'll let you know which ones are mine. Just for the record, I don't do "advertising" -- never have. I do "Wikipedia articles".

I rather think the quote is awkward but not specifically "wrong" -- the point appears to be that the noun as spelled would be a type of noun in a specific language used to refer to persons and not to objects. How would you convey such a fact about a language?

This post has been edited by Collect: