User talk:Rlove
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Edit to Ultimatum game
Hi there, and welcome to wikipedia. I appreciate your taking a look at the ultimatum game page. May I ask why you removed the reference in this edit? I didn't completely understand what you meant in your edit summary. If your interested, we have a project on game theory where we try to coordinate efforts to improve wikipedia's game theory content. Feel free to join in, if you like. Have a good day. --best, kevin └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 03:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- It was a mistake, actually. I reverted it. Rlove 04:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edit to Google Talk
Hi there! I noticed you removed the paragraph about Talk's "first users" as inconsequential. Wouldn't a section on History include the first users, especially if they were unofficial/illegal? 124.148.82.28 03:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- The paragraph I removed was not about first users, it was about a several-hour-long downtime. It is highly inconsequential. Who cares that the service was down for a couple hours one evening in August? Or am I missing something? Rlove 14:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the diff. Basically, the downtime was the day before the official launch. When the server port came back up, Google thanked its unofficially logged-on users, and officially launched Google Talk. That bit came just after the downtime details – it's easy to miss. I suppose this paragraph was added because most companies would be extremely annoyed at public Internet users getting into their "private" server - they certainly wouldn't have sent a nice thank-you message out! 124.148.82.28 15:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- A downtime before the thing even launched? It seems even less relevant to me now! Wikipedia suffers from a problem--I call it contemporarism--where events that happen during the course of writing the document receive over-attention. We have to ask, is this information encyclopedic? Will this point be relevant a year from now? Is this news or is it history? Anyhow, we should move this discussion to the Talk page if you still disagree. Rlove 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not expressing myself very well. The downtime doesn't matter much - I don't care if that's removed - but in that paragraph was also the information that Google Talk's first users were unofficial (not official beta testers) and that Google thanked them for that. I think that information belongs in the article.
- A downtime before the thing even launched? It seems even less relevant to me now! Wikipedia suffers from a problem--I call it contemporarism--where events that happen during the course of writing the document receive over-attention. We have to ask, is this information encyclopedic? Will this point be relevant a year from now? Is this news or is it history? Anyhow, we should move this discussion to the Talk page if you still disagree. Rlove 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a link to the diff. Basically, the downtime was the day before the official launch. When the server port came back up, Google thanked its unofficially logged-on users, and officially launched Google Talk. That bit came just after the downtime details – it's easy to miss. I suppose this paragraph was added because most companies would be extremely annoyed at public Internet users getting into their "private" server - they certainly wouldn't have sent a nice thank-you message out! 124.148.82.28 15:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- And yes, moving this to the article's talk page is probably a good idea. How do we do that? 124.148.82.28 02:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I haven't heard anything for a week, so I've added the content back (with a slight clarification). If you still don't feel this is a good idea, feel free to revert me and transfer this discussion to Talk:Google Talk. We'll pick up from where we left off. Thanks! 124.148.82.28 04:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- And yes, moving this to the article's talk page is probably a good idea. How do we do that? 124.148.82.28 02:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
