Talk:Competition policy/Draft: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards No edit summary |
John Leach (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "CZ:Article Mechanics" to "CZ:Article mechanics") |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
Fixed, I think? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:27, 13 November 2007 (CST) | Fixed, I think? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:27, 13 November 2007 (CST) | ||
::It still doesnt appear in the To Approve listings:-((( --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 16:29, 13 November 2007 (CST) | ::It still doesnt appear in the To Approve listings:-((( --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 16:29, 13 November 2007 (CST) | ||
:::Link for me the "To Approve" listings. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:36, 13 November 2007 (CST) | |||
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Articles_to_Approve But you can also check from the Workgroup pages, section ToApprove. Martin | |||
::::Moved to the talk page of that category. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:43, 13 November 2007 (CST) | |||
What does Robert King mean? [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 16:33, 13 November 2007 (CST) | |||
:Is this a philosophical, existential, or abstract question? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 16:37, 13 November 2007 (CST) | |||
::No, it's a practical question from someone who doesnt know the technical problems we have. Better to keep away, Nick:-) --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 16:39, 13 November 2007 (CST) | |||
==APPROVED Version 1.0== | |||
Congratulations again Nick et al!<div class="usermessage plainlinks">Discussion for [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Competition_policy&oldid=100210726 Version 1.0] stopped here. Please continue further discussion under this break. </div> | |||
The article does not appear to begin with a definition, which is contrary to [[CZ:Article mechanics]]. Can we add one in the next version, please? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:46, 24 January 2008 (CST) | |||
In my opinion, the opening sentence says all that can be said by way of definition. | |||
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 15:28, 24 January 2008 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 17:02, 5 March 2024
Fixed, I think? --Robert W King 16:27, 13 November 2007 (CST)
- It still doesnt appear in the To Approve listings:-((( --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:29, 13 November 2007 (CST)
- Link for me the "To Approve" listings. --Robert W King 16:36, 13 November 2007 (CST)
- It still doesnt appear in the To Approve listings:-((( --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:29, 13 November 2007 (CST)
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Articles_to_Approve But you can also check from the Workgroup pages, section ToApprove. Martin
- Moved to the talk page of that category. --Robert W King 16:43, 13 November 2007 (CST)
What does Robert King mean? Nick Gardner 16:33, 13 November 2007 (CST)
- Is this a philosophical, existential, or abstract question? --Robert W King 16:37, 13 November 2007 (CST)
- No, it's a practical question from someone who doesnt know the technical problems we have. Better to keep away, Nick:-) --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:39, 13 November 2007 (CST)
APPROVED Version 1.0
Congratulations again Nick et al!
The article does not appear to begin with a definition, which is contrary to CZ:Article mechanics. Can we add one in the next version, please? --Larry Sanger 12:46, 24 January 2008 (CST)
In my opinion, the opening sentence says all that can be said by way of definition. Nick Gardner 15:28, 24 January 2008 (CST)