h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I wish h2g2 provided an edit feature like Ezboard does

In the interests of clarity:-

Ulimately they are responsible to the people (electors)

Should have read - Ulimately they (or at least their political party) are anwserable to the people (electors)

Unfettered = To set free or keep free from restrictions or bonds

> "Unfettered = To set free or keep free from restrictions or bonds"

Ooh - don't tell Mina....

Don't worry, I'm sworn to silence

Oooh - SWEARING!! I'm gonna tell on you! *reaches for yikes button*

*stands in the dust that covers the wooden floorboards of a worn-down saloon, guns at the ready, a slow smile creeping over his face*

I wouldn't do that if I were you, Nexus... unless of course, you think you're fast enough.

*Ennio Morricone's theme to GoodBad&Ugly sounds across the prairie as NexusSeven's hand quivers over the yikes button*

*gulps*

*bead of sweat travels slowly down side of face*

*extreme close-up of eyes narrowing*

*hand flexes, hovering just above the button*

You think you got what it takes?

*gets off her horse*

*strides into the saloon, through the swing doors, nearly trips up, Mutters 'blooming spurs!*

*moseys up to the bar*

Barman! I'll have a little ole shot of Old Miss Lucy's Mulish Firewater.

* hits NexusSeven on the head with a large rubber fish *

Oh calm down and have a drink! You too, Peregrin.

Hello Abi! Nice to see you.

* downs a and puts on his hat *

I'm afraid I have to go to a lecture on the Mathematics of Program Construction. Isn't that just absolutely terrible? I shall return!!

* vanishes in a puff of black smoke that, bizzarely, smells like chocolate *

MaW downs a what?

--

Here's a thought - could we be allowed to use URLs which are in edited guide entries in forum posts? For example, the edited entry on savage garden links to the official savage garden site at [guess it]. If there was some tool for moderators that could check all URLs in posting against all the linked sites on h2g2 (and I assume there is such a list, so that they can be regularly reviewed, as per BBC policy), then I could mention that URL in conversation, which would be pleasing...

Easier suggested than done, of course...

Yes, most probably. I downed a . Surely you're familiar with that smiley by now?

I need to think of a suitable modification to my nickname for tomorrow's grand reopening. Something friendly and reassuring...

*eases hands off the sixshooters, now smiling broadly*

I'll assume you meant me, MaW, since Peregrin has been nowhere to be seen since no one can remember.

*downs a Wild Turkey himself,
smacks lips, cracks fingers*

G'day Abi, nice of you to drop by. Consider that Ole Lucy on me, whatever that means.

Say MaW, you realise your idea is already in effect? It is possible to post internally to an article, and then have the article comprise a URL you are really referring to. It's even allowed to a certain extent, as in excluding the cases where blatant beating around the bush is the case. What is blatant beating around the bush?
Posting to an article you wrote purely for the sake of putting loads of external links and not other text in. That's beating around the bush.

Still, Abi-baby (ugh, sorry, but I can't drop the savvy cowboy bit), you're going to have ball with people exporing the limits of tolerable behaviour here, if that isn't the case already.

*smacks fingers, cracks lips, curses under breath "Wrong way around again!"

*eases hands off the sixshooters, now smiling broadly*

I'll assume you meant me, MaW, since Peregrin has been nowhere to be seen since no one can remember.

*downs a Wild Turkey himself,
smacks lips, cracks fingers*

G'day Abi, nice of you to drop by. Consider that Ole Lucy on me, whatever that means.

Say MaW, you realise your idea is already in effect? It is possible to post internally to an article, and then have the article comprise a URL you are really referring to. It's even allowed to a certain extent, as in excluding the cases where blatant beating around the bush is the case. What is blatant beating around the bush?
Posting to an article you wrote purely for the sake of putting loads of external links and not other text in. That's beating around the bush.

Still, Abi-baby (ugh, sorry, but I can't drop the savvy cowboy bit), you're going to have ball with people exporing the limits of tolerable behaviour here, if that isn't the case already.

*smacks fingers, cracks lips, curses under breath "Wrong way around again!"*

sigh

The more things change the more they stay the same

As the Bistromathic Drive showed Arthur. Yes, I meant you President of HeadSnot Inc. Why I thought you were Peregrin I have no idea...

tried to reply, but something mucked up somewhere - such is the web.

That was my idea, not MaW's. MaW was drinking a that for some reason I couldn't see. It'd simply make it easier to provide such links: they could be given directly, rather than indirectly. However, clearly it's better to reopen sooner and solve such nitpicks later.

Is "blatant beating around the bush" really forbidden? It increases the moderator load, tis true - but so does writing a really long and comprehensive entry with lots of useful and non-purely commercial links. I'd figured it was fine.

While I'm trying (and failing) to be helpful, here's another feature that in some future blue skies moment would be desirable to help ameliorate this URL banning. Allow an ability to suggest that a URL should be linked to by an edited entry. Example: if there is a really good website about Ethics, then I could click the button, type in [url removed by moderator], and send it off. When the entry is next updated, the updaters (whoseover they may be) can look at the URL, and if it is relevant, integrate it, along with the rest of the stuff they'll be integrating.

I have some difficulty getting your plan, but you basically ponder the 'relevant URL suggestion button'. No?

If this would be a button for suggesting URLS in entries, that's I think a little redundant since as I heard, you are allowed to include URLs in Guide entries. They are checked by the editor, and then included or left out. But in your basic thing you can have URLs. Any URLs. It's the URLs in casual postings, in Peerreview for instacne, that has everybody so worked up. If I'm not mistaken that is.

SO, how would your buttong help this?

You aren't allowed URLs in any posting, 'casual' or otherwise...

Twas suggestion of URLs *for* entries, not suggestion *in* entries. The only person who can put a URL in an edited entry is the editor - but people who aren't the editor (IE, the researcher) may wish to suggest URLs, and other additional content.

As it stands, they can suggest additional content, but they can't suggest URLs.

Clearer?

That's not how I understood it.

As a subeditor, I would rather like to know. I don't think it's my job to put that much vetting into the linked URLs in an entry. I check them out, if they're very commercial or offensive (unlikely the latter) then I scrap 'em. That was the same before.

If I was a Researcher, I would be very confused. Or I would carry on as before.

What is the difference between suggesting a URL and including it in the entry from the start, at the risk of it being removed by the subed or editor.

As you can't post URL's to forums, that would be the only place you COULD put it.

Confused

Tee hee, the spot keeps eluding the finger, as Zen Master Hufflepump McFluff (eat your heart out Mrs. Rowling) would say.

What I know perceive as Lucinda's plan is a way for PeerReview people like ourselves to suggest URLs, an action which is now problematic because they:
-didn't write the original article so they can't go ahead and put URLs in
-aren't sub-eds or eds so they can't edit the original Entry
-aren't allowed to suggest URLs because that would be in a posting, and you can't do that anymore, at the risk of getting "[URL removed by moderator]".

Right Lucinda?

So the button would be a solution. I agree, but what may be better (seeing as your point about wanting URLs possible in PR postings and not really anywhere else, restrictive as it is) and easier for everyone is simply a tolerance practiced by moderators in PeerReview.

Same as Holland. Smoking pot is illegal. It is. However, in practice it's tolerated, which is how Holland defends its maligned policy in the international political field. And you know what, I think it works! *puff*