Talk:Getting In - Revision history

Integrity: /* Word replacement */ new section

2018-11-02T10:45:33Z

Word replacement: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:45, 2 November 2018
Line 20:		Line 20:

	This page seems to be protected. I think it would be best to have a prominent link to [[Getting Here]] at the top of the page, as it's easy to end up on this page when you're looking for directions. -[[User:Peteforsyth\|Pete F]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth\|talk]]) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)		This page seems to be protected. I think it would be best to have a prominent link to [[Getting Here]] at the top of the page, as it's easy to end up on this page when you're looking for directions. -[[User:Peteforsyth\|Pete F]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth\|talk]]) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

			== Word replacement ==

			"Good times to catch us our in the evenings during the week" should read "Good times to catch us are in the evenings during the week"

MillerOfCapricorn at 01:15, 5 October 2016

2016-10-05T01:15:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:15, 4 October 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[File:Circuit.jpg]]

	== Redundant edits? ==		== Redundant edits? ==

Peteforsyth: /* Request for edit */ new section

2016-07-10T19:16:43Z

Request for edit: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:16, 10 July 2016
Line 14:		Line 14:

	There is an extra space in "[[Do-ocracy]] -style," which should be removed. [[User:Frank\|Frank]] ([[User talk:Frank\|talk]]) 17:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)		There is an extra space in "[[Do-ocracy]] -style," which should be removed. [[User:Frank\|Frank]] ([[User talk:Frank\|talk]]) 17:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

			== Request for edit ==

			This page seems to be protected. I think it would be best to have a prominent link to [[Getting Here]] at the top of the page, as it's easy to end up on this page when you're looking for directions. -[[User:Peteforsyth\|Pete F]] ([[User talk:Peteforsyth\|talk]]) 19:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Frank: Sign correctly

2014-04-22T17:51:48Z

Sign correctly

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:51, 22 April 2014
Line 13:		Line 13:
	== Extra space ==		== Extra space ==

	There is an extra space in "[[Do-ocracy]] -style," which should be removed. [[~~Special~~:~~Contributions/64.13.14.48~~\|~~64.13.14.48~~]] 17:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)		There is an extra space in "[[Do-ocracy]] -style," which should be removed. [[User:Frank\|Frank]] ([[User talk:Frank\|talk]]) 17:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

64.13.14.48: /* Extra space */ new section

2014-04-22T17:46:27Z

Extra space: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:46, 22 April 2014
Line 10:		Line 10:

	I feel that [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vouched vouched for] is more clear, modern and conveys the intention better. "to give a guarantee : become surety" What do you think? --[[User:Gadlen\|gadlen]] ([[User talk:Gadlen\|talk]]) 17:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)		I feel that [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vouched vouched for] is more clear, modern and conveys the intention better. "to give a guarantee : become surety" What do you think? --[[User:Gadlen\|gadlen]] ([[User talk:Gadlen\|talk]]) 17:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

			== Extra space ==

			There is an extra space in "[[Do-ocracy]] -style," which should be removed. [[Special:Contributions/64.13.14.48\|64.13.14.48]] 17:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Gadlen: /* Vouchsafe */ new section

2013-11-06T17:07:17Z

Vouchsafe: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:07, 6 November 2013
Line 4:		Line 4:

	What do you think? --[[User:Gadlen\|gadlen]] ([[User talk:Gadlen\|talk]]) 17:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)		What do you think? --[[User:Gadlen\|gadlen]] ([[User talk:Gadlen\|talk]]) 17:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

			== Vouchsafe ==

			I removed the term [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vouchsafe vouchsafed] as in "properly vouchsafed guest". I could be wrong but it seems like an esoteric term that doesn't actually convey the meaning of what is going on here. Merriam-Webster says it's "to grant or furnish often in a gracious or condescending manner"

			I feel that [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vouched vouched for] is more clear, modern and conveys the intention better. "to give a guarantee : become surety" What do you think? --[[User:Gadlen\|gadlen]] ([[User talk:Gadlen\|talk]]) 17:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Gadlen at 20:10, 4 November 2013

2013-11-04T20:10:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:10, 4 November 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Redundant edits? ==		== Redundant edits? ==

	Each of the edits [https://noisebridge.net/index.php?title=Getting_In&diff=0&oldid=34988 here] seem bit redundant. For example, does it need to say both "friend" and "known acquiantance"? If this is trying to be a guide, I believe the language should be as clean as possible; perfect "clarity" should be left for some legalese-like page that might be linked to.		Each of the edits [https://noisebridge.net/index.php?title=Getting_In&diff=34989&oldid=34988 here] seem bit redundant. For example, does it need to say both "friend" and "known acquiantance"? If this is trying to be a guide, I believe the language should be as clean as possible; perfect "clarity" should be left for some legalese-like page that might be linked to.

	What do you think? --[[User:Gadlen\|gadlen]] ([[User talk:Gadlen\|talk]]) 17:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)		What do you think? --[[User:Gadlen\|gadlen]] ([[User talk:Gadlen\|talk]]) 17:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Gadlen: /* Redundant edits? */ new section

2013-11-01T17:23:12Z

Redundant edits?: new section

New page

== Redundant edits? ==

Each of the edits [https://noisebridge.net/index.php?title=Getting_In&diff=0&oldid=34988 here] seem bit redundant. For example, does it need to say both "friend" and "known acquiantance"? If this is trying to be a guide, I believe the language should be as clean as possible; perfect "clarity" should be left for some legalese-like page that might be linked to.

What do you think? --[[User:Gadlen|gadlen]] ([[User talk:Gadlen|talk]]) 17:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)