User talk:Netesq
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
User NetEsq
|
Contents |
[edit] Additional Comments or Questions
If you wish to add a question or comment to this page, please do so at the bottom, separating it with a horizontal rule and giving it an appropriate subtitle. Alternatively, use the "+" symbol at the top of this page.
[edit] Welcome from Maveric149
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, I wrote most of the Davis, California article -- any expansion or edits by you would be much appreciated. Cheers! --maveric149
- Thanks for the welcome, maveric149. I've encountered a substantial number of familiar and noteworthy bylines here, but I'm still in semi-lurk mode, doing my best to familiarize myself with Wikipea editing and determine what (and who) Wikipedia has in common with other online communities.
- It's too early to say for certain, but my plan for right now is to use Wikipedia as a general reference resource which I can link to on the fly, contributing content whenever I encounter a substantial void in the coverage of important topics. -- NetEsq
[edit] No Legal Opinions or Legal Advice from NetEsq
What is exactly for your standard disclaimer "this is not a legal opinion"? --AN
- Whenever I answer a question which is legal in nature, or a question which has a legal component, there is the danger that someone may construe my answer as legal advice which an attorney would give his or her clients. By stating "this is not a legal opinion," I am cautioning people that they should not rely upon my opinions in this way. Rather, if people think that they need legal advice, they should retain an attorney. A useful byproduct of this disclaimer is an increased alertness to the dubious nature of legal advice which is offered in informal settings.--NetEsq
[edit] Tnx for the format
Tnx for the orderly format of your talk page. This is like the reception room of a prosperous attorney, instead of a noisy gymnasium. [smile] --Jerzy 17:33, 2003 Oct 27 (UTC)
[edit] Ignore all credentials
I would support the elevation of that to a more fundamental position of respect within the community.
I actually suspect that the problem of people inappropriately relying on credentials in an argument is much more likely in cases where people are faking the credentials. Actual PhDs are not normally pompous jerks, they are actually well trained intellectuals who have devoted themselves to a life of rational discussion and debate, and they know quite well that "I have PhD so STFU" is not a valid argument. It's the fake PhDs who are likely to try that nonsense.--Jimbo Wales 07:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Jimbo logic
I made my commentary due to "Jimbo said..." being a bit of an appeal to authority as well.... :-) In effect if one abides by this guideline and it is taken to heart Jimbo's credentials should be ignored in debates also. :-) (→Netscott) 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- It was a clean bust. If adopted as a guideline or policy, IAC will invite many of the same paradoxes that IAR invites. // Internet Esquire 19:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mmm, nice degrees you're boasting of there...
Are they fakes? More seriously, I like IAC, and see it as complementary to a voluntary option to provide verification if you want to. In any event, Ill disregard your claimed degrees. All the best, .. dave souza, talk 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Back burner
I've made a decision to clean up my User Talk Page by creating an archive entitled "Back burner." If and when I move content from here to there, it will be because I don't consider it timely, important, or interesting enough to keep here and/or because I simply don't have the time to respond to it adequately and won't be responding to it anytime soon. At the same time, I don't feel comfortable just deleting such content. // Internet Esquire 19:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
