Personal tools
 
Views

User talk:Matthew.graham26

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 16:52, 4 April 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Revision as of 08:14, 5 April 2008 (edit)
Matthew.graham26 (Talk | contribs)
(hi)
Next diff →
Line 37: Line 37:
Thanks for the tips and the help, Brooks Lindsay. ''[[User:Matthew.graham26|Matt]] 04:09, 28 March 2008 (CDT)'' Thanks for the tips and the help, Brooks Lindsay. ''[[User:Matthew.graham26|Matt]] 04:09, 28 March 2008 (CDT)''
 +
 +== hi ==
 +
 +hi dude

Revision as of 08:14, 5 April 2008

Fixed it

I fixed it. I think you're accidentally erasing the code that appears in editing windows. You have to try to stay clear of that. I know it's finicky, and we're working on that. The other thing is that we can't have subsections (at least at this point) within Yes and No boxes for specific arguments. Rather, you simply need to bold these argument headers. The reason is that it messes with the software we've developed. We'll consider enabling this though, and thanks for exploring the software, and for all of your good work generally. I mean to jump in with you more on the debates that you're working on. Particularly, the ones coming up on the Publishing Calendar (we've been trying to settle into this calendar more consistently - be patient with us). -- Brooks Lindsay 11:52, 4 April 2008 (CDT)

Kangaroo cullings

I've made some contributions to your Kangaroo cullings debate. It's a very interesting debate. Let me know what you think. I know we got behind on "publishing" this debate on the daily digest. I'm going to move it forward in the calendar. Look for it. -- Brooks Lindsay 10:34, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Bolding argument claims

Hey Matthew, our general formatting style is to bold the argument claims, rather than making them into sections with ===== =====. To bold, you simply need to put ''' ''' around the claim. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:43, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

You're awesome!

Great work Matthew. I'm working right now on the Debate:Clinton vs. Obama for 2008 US Democratic nomination debate if you're interested. -- Brooks Lindsay 11:15, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

Kangaroo debate

Good work on that debate. I fixed the formating problems. Unfortunately, the code that makes up the structure of debates is easy to disrupt at this point. Just make sure that you're not deleting any code when you're adding content in an editing window. -- Brooks Lindsay 09:00, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

Whaling

Cool. I'll take the pro case for whaling. Make sure to "sign" your comments, like on the Make the case page, with "~~~~". -- Brooks Lindsay 09:31, 24 March 2008 (CDT)

Focusing overweight passenger debate

It seems that we should isolate the topic to overweight passengers. Discussion of the costs of carrying on luggage seem to stray from the thrust of the debate. Don't you think? -- Brooks Lindsay 13:07, 11 March 2008 (CDT)To be honest, not really...

Drugs in sports

Made a couple contributions to your good work on the Drugs in sports debate. I also move the page to a more fitting title. -- Brooks Lindsay 15:47, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Drugs in sports

Matthew.graham26, great work with the drugs in sports debate. We already have one up though on this topic - Debate:Drugs in Sport. I'd love to work with you in merging the content you've created with the new debate, and then working to develop the Drugs in Sports debate to feature debate status, whereupon, we would put it on the main page in the Daily Debate digest, perhaps in two weeks. We could set a date for completing this task on the Debate collaborations page. I've made a not of this all on the Debatepedia:Community forum-- Brooks Lindsay 11:37, 9 March 2008 (CDT)

Debate: Plastic bags

Can you possibly fix the page about plastic bags?? Matt 23:57, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

Thanks

Thanks for the tips and the help, Brooks Lindsay. Matt 04:09, 28 March 2008 (CDT)

hi

hi dude

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.