Personal tools
 
Views

User talk:Ifisher18

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 21:29, 15 May 2010 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Well done!!!)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 19:57, 17 May 2010 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Good thinking, but...)
Next diff →
Line 59: Line 59:
Great work. The Greece article is looking good so far, and you've adopted our methodology very nicely. I like that you're writing tight argument titles. Good quotations. Keep up the good work!!! I'm going to finish refining the Mine Ban Treaty article as our next Debate Digest article, and then we'll make the Greece bailout our next/next one to work on jointly and feature on the main page etc. -- [[User:Brooks Lindsay|Brooks Lindsay]]<sup> ([[User talk:Brooks Lindsay|Talk]])</sup> 17:29, 15 May 2010 (EDT) Great work. The Greece article is looking good so far, and you've adopted our methodology very nicely. I like that you're writing tight argument titles. Good quotations. Keep up the good work!!! I'm going to finish refining the Mine Ban Treaty article as our next Debate Digest article, and then we'll make the Greece bailout our next/next one to work on jointly and feature on the main page etc. -- [[User:Brooks Lindsay|Brooks Lindsay]]<sup> ([[User talk:Brooks Lindsay|Talk]])</sup> 17:29, 15 May 2010 (EDT)
 +
 +== Good thinking, but... ==
 +
 +I like the way you're thinking. In general, we don't really have enough resources (community size) to break-down the pros and cons of every candidate, but major candidates, yes, potentially. And, of course, we should keep focused on the big topics coming down the pike. -- [[User:Brooks Lindsay|Brooks Lindsay]]<sup> ([[User talk:Brooks Lindsay|Talk]])</sup> 15:57, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

Revision as of 19:57, 17 May 2010

Good stuff

Good first contributions. The important thing to me is that you're taking initiative and that your writing style is sound, and it is. I've adjusted some of the formatting. You want to make bold-type argument headers to start-off each argument. And, not make an entire section out of the argument using, as you did, ==== ==== . Keep it up. Good stuff. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 10:29, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank you

Thanks Brooks for the compliments, I really appreciate it. And I'll definitely use some of your tips; I think I'm finally getting used to the formatting. :)

More good stuff

Very nice work. More comments: You are writing fairly long argument titles. So, one of the more recent ones was: "Illegal immigrants deprive Americans of social services such as government welfare, housing, food, and shelter." I would write this as "Illegal immigrants deprive Americans of social services. These can include government welfare, housing, food, and shelter..." Try to make the argument titles/headlines about the length of a news headline - very short, usually no more than 7 or 8 words, and sometimes using pithy wording in headline style (which may be slightly off grammatically, but there's an accepted style that you'll get the hang of). Best, -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 13:54, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

Future Plans

Hey, I wasn't exactly sure if you wanted me to continue building the debate on illegal immigration, or to move on to another debate. Whatever you need me to do, I'm up for the task. Just let me know whatever you need done. And also, I oversaw a user name Lenka, who has done a lot of the Table of Contents pages, even one on my recent debate on immigration. I was just wondering how to do that, because it looks pretty cool now. Thanks, -Isaac

Re: Deporting all illegal immigrants

No problem.

I really like your work, keep it up! :)

Lenka 16:08, May 1st 2010

Hey there

Really great work! Very impressed. You are definitely worthy of the title of Debatepedia.org Intern! :) If you want to continue as an Intern, essentially, I want you to continue to do what you are doing, which is edit consistently and ask me questions about what needs doing on the site. In general, I want you to explore your own personal interests, but also follow my lead on important topics that we're working on, and to work with the other intern User:Lenkahabetinova. As you'll see on Recent Changes, she is also a very ambitious editor. I think you guys will get along great. For now, I want you to work on Debate: Arizona immigration law. And, have a look at the Debate Digest Cue for important topics that I'll be working on coming up. Good stuff! -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 21:41, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

Not a problem

Definitely, focus all your attention on your exams for now. Lenka is actually a high school student in the Czech Republic, so is in a very similar situation, but not with AP exams. Anyway, we'll talk soon, and share a phone call after your exams, perhaps. You can "sign" your comments by writing ~~~~ -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 23:07, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

Re: US withdrawing from the UN

Is this really a serious topic? My general opinion is that there is no real movement in the United States to withdraw from the UN, accept from perhaps the neocons of the Bush era. But, let me know if there is some serious movement, recently, on this front. In general, I try to focus attention on topics in which there is widespread division and debate, and in which real choices need to be made. Does that make sense? Among all the topics out there today, I don't see withdrawing from the UN as a pressing one. You're fine to spend a little bit more time on it if you like, but I'd recommend that you move onto another topic soon. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 14:19, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

Sure

The Greece bailout could be a good one. I do, though, tend to see it as a no-brainer; that a bailout is necessary. And, one of the issues with these kinds of topics is that it's often a question of degrees instead of pro/con. But, go ahead and create it! -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 20:18, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

Greece bailout

Hey, I really like the Debate: Greece Bailout you created. However, I am not quite sure what the main question should be. I mean - the obvious one whether we should or should not bailout Greece could stand if we defined "we" as the EU, for example. Because as Brooks said - a bailout is necessary, the only controversy is who should take action. What do you think?

Lenka 12:16, May 14th 2010

Re:Greece bailout

Hi. The title is fine, just (for the next time) do not capitalize the first letter of the second (third...) word unless it is a name or something. (E.g. Debate: Greece bailout)

Sure, I am quite interested in this debate, I'll join you in the effort :)

Best,

Lenka, May 15th 2010, 16:24

PS: Just one more thing: The motion concerns the EU, therefore arguments concerning US citizens look kinda weird. Just my opinion.

Well done!!!

Great work. The Greece article is looking good so far, and you've adopted our methodology very nicely. I like that you're writing tight argument titles. Good quotations. Keep up the good work!!! I'm going to finish refining the Mine Ban Treaty article as our next Debate Digest article, and then we'll make the Greece bailout our next/next one to work on jointly and feature on the main page etc. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 17:29, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

Good thinking, but...

I like the way you're thinking. In general, we don't really have enough resources (community size) to break-down the pros and cons of every candidate, but major candidates, yes, potentially. And, of course, we should keep focused on the big topics coming down the pike. -- Brooks Lindsay (Talk) 15:57, 17 May 2010 (EDT)

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.