Would you care to give reasons as to your vote instead of being surprised that you're the only one who voted so?Geez! I'm the only person who voted no.
If you explained your side, perhaps someone else would agree.
Moderator:Æron
Would you care to give reasons as to your vote instead of being surprised that you're the only one who voted so?Geez! I'm the only person who voted no.
Anami and Anami are sitting around Anami says "GRR I AM ANGSTY LET'S EXPRESS ANGST" and so Anami says "ONE OF THE MODS ON DC IS A DICK I POSTED A PICTURE THAT WASN'T REALLY THAT INAPPROPRIATE AND THREE MODS SAW IT AND DID NOTHING THEN A FOURTH ONE SAW IT AND DELETED IT" and Anami says "OMG I HATE MODS >:("
This, this, a thousand times THIS.Of course Wikipedia is generally useful, anyone who says otherwise is objectively wrong. Again, like Jason says, it comes down to using common sense when deciding what's legit and what's not - but it's usually legit. Wikipedia has never, ever steered me wrong in all the times I've used it, whether academically or for recreational uses.
Of course you shouldn't cite it in your papers, that's an obvious no-no, but all you have to do is cite the sources it references (after checking that said source is legit, of course). Really, Wikipedia makes everything easy.
link?There was an article on Wikipedia about a COMPLETELY NON-EXISTENT Greek philosopher, complete with citations, for over a YEAR before somebody noticed.
Well put doog. You never posted anything offensive whatsoever
we know she'll be back, like a good bitch should.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... Joci%C4%87link?There was an article on Wikipedia about a COMPLETELY NON-EXISTENT Greek philosopher, complete with citations, for over a YEAR before somebody noticed.
Well put doog. You never posted anything offensive whatsoever
we know she'll be back, like a good bitch should.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests