I think this is a great idea Jing
Jing, you're brilliant! I wonder if it would make sense, with these teams, to do a pro/con arrangement in which interns work, to some extent, on opposing cases. At the same time, though, it would be a friendly competitive kind of environment. -- Brooks Lindsay 21:17, 3 April 2008 (CDT)
Thank you Jing for that comment. I'm going to try to better foster communications between the active interns. I've tried to encourage communication between interns on the community forum, but that hasn't really worked. I may encourage greater communication via the mailing list (sparingly though). And, I think I'm going to try to get interns exchanging Instant Messenger screennames. Do you have any other ideas? -- Brooks Lindsay 17:22, 3 April 2008 (CDT)
If you leave a space left of the text (between the left of the window and the first letter of the text) it does does that. I wish it didn't. No worries Jing. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:43, 3 April 2008 (CDT)
Generally, make sure to save frequently. I usually on do a paragraph at a time, then I save. If the network was cut-off while you were editing, and you can't get back to the screen with the content that you were editing, then your edits were lost, sadly. It's happened to me too. You just gotta save more often. :) - Brooks Lindsay 16:53, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
What you are asking, in both questions, regards how to make internal links between pages. To post a link to your debate pages on the Debatepedia intern page, you should copy and past the title of your debate page under your name. Then, TO MAKE THE INTERNAL LINK, you should put two brackets on either side of the title of the debate page so write: [[Debate:Capital Punishment]], for example.
When you change the "claim" on the debate page, you are indeed breaking the link to the argument page you intend to link to. The link on the debate page does need to be exactly the same wording as the title of the argument page. What you'll need to do is, first, retrieve the exact titles of the argument pages you'd created so that you can get back to them (they still exist, you just are not longer linked to them from your debate page). So, you'll need to go to the history page of your debate page, click "last" maybe 20 or so edits back in history, and then search to see the "claims" that you had previously used that are the ACTUAL titles of the argument pages you created. Now, you'll need to go to these argument pages, and if you want to change their titles, you'll need to MOVE THE PAGE TO THE NEW TITLE (CLAIM) THAT YOU THINK IS MORE APPROPRIATE. THEN, YOU'LL HAVE TO PUT THE NEW TITLE YOU'VE MOVED TO ONTO THE DEBATE PAGE AS THE CLAIM AND THE NEW LINK. I know this isn't that simple, so I'll help if you need it tomorrow.
-- Brooks Lindsay 00:15, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Make sure that "Argument" precedes argument titles. Write this out on the debate page in the following way: [[Argument: Trade integration with the US through dollarization may be harmful| Trade integration with the US through dollarization may be harmful]]. This makes the "Argument" part of the title disappear on the debate page. But, it's important to have "Argument" in the title, we believe, for the purpose of people working through search results. -- ~~~~ ==Dollarization== Great job Jing! You're really getting the hang of this. A couple of comments. One of the challenges for us all is making argument "claims" as short as possible. My general rule is that "claims" should be short enough to fit on one line on the debate page and one line on the argument pages (as the title of argument pages). Here's how I would shorten the following argument you contributed (which is a great argument!): *'''[[Dollarization not only significantly increases bilateral US trade with dollarized countries but promotes trade among dollar-zone countries as well.]]''' *Shorten to: '''[[Dollarization promotes trade among dollar-zone countries]]''' Dollarization not only significantly increases bilateral US trade with dollarized countries but promotes trade among dollar-zone countries as well. (Make the longer qualifications and explainations part of the argument summary.) Great work -- [[User:Brooks Lindsay|Brooks Lindsay]] 13:55, 8 March 2008 (CST) ==On talk pages== The message that you sent to me, I mean, should be "signed" with "<nowiki>~~~~" so that I can get back to your talk page to respond easily. -- Brooks Lindsay 19:35, 7 February 2008 (CST)
Last tip: sign your comments on my and other's user pages by writing ~~~~.
I think the argument, "Float is not a TGD "priority',China is takings steps to limit garbage float in TGD", is contradictory. That they are taking steps to address the problem is good, but it does not indicate that "float is not a TGD priority".
Bear with me, here's what we're going to do, for the exercise. I want you to "move" this page to "Argument: China is taking steps to limit garbage gloat in TGD". To do this, go to the page, click "move", and then put "Argument: China is taking steps to limit garbage gloat in TGD" in the provided box. The press "move". Knowing how to "move" pages is very very important, so this is a great opportunity. -- Brooks Lindsay 19:05, 7 February 2008 (CST)
WELL DONE!!!! -- Brooks Lindsay 18:58, 7 February 2008 (CST)
Well worded: "Loss of culture heritages results from the TGD". Now, a good approach sometimes is to develop these claims as you've done, and then to copy and paste them word-for-word into a Google search to find articles and supporting evidence. -- Brooks Lindsay 18:13, 7 February 2008 (CST)
Let's make an argument page and quote from the article you just posted
Step 1: Isolate the argument: "China is takings steps to limit garbage float in TGD" Step 2: Make this into an argument page. Step 3: Cut and paste a supporting quote.
Once you've made it that far, I'll step in to help you out. -- Brooks Lindsay 18:03, 7 February 2008 (CST)
Ok. You did the right thing in making the header red. In doing so, you actually did create the page. Do that again. Then, click on the red link. The red link will take you to the empty new page that is created with the argument "claim" as the title. By putting [[ ]] around anything you create a new page with the title being what exists between the brackets. Paste your quote or just write something in the new page, and then click "save". Click on another argument page on the page to view and example of how you construct them. Then, "click" edit on one of those pages to see the wiki code that is used. Then, emulate what you see in creating your own argument page. -- Brooks Lindsay 17:34, 7 February 2008 (CST)
On each other's talk pages here. So, click on my name and make comments on my talk page there. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:50, 7 February 2008 (CST)
As you'll see, I've provided a model for you to follow on the article. Start first by collecting pro/con resources. Then, draw from those resources arguments and quotes (evidence) to place in argument pages that you can create. Try this out on your own. I'll walk you through this process in a couple of minutes. First, I'm gonna grab a quick lunch. -- Brooks Lindsay 15:14, 7 February 2008 (CST)
Hi there. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:46, 24 January 2008 (CST)
Hey Jing. Welcome. One way to start learning how to edit is to look at the Debatepedia:Getting started tutorial. Then, make sure to actively ask me questions, as I can quickly help you learn how to become and expert with the various tools on Debatepedia. Now, once you're ready, try to pick a debate topic that you and I can work on collaboratively. You can pick it from the Debatepedia:Interns page or from your own imagination. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:41, 23 January 2008 (CST)
I catch u
I see. Don't gulp down ur lunch. Enjoy the food.
Brooks, how can I make a debate page appear under my name on the "Debateintern" page ?Jing 23:37, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
Brooks, everytime I change the "claim", the arguement page will disappear. then the claim will turn red. how can i find the argument page back??Jing 23:56, 9 March 2008 (CDT)
Ok. learn a lesson from it though sad.THX.Jing 16:56, 20 March 2008 (CDT)
Yes! Do that. I'm going to help you get rid of some of the junk in that article too. It really needs to be completely overhauled. It's very sloppy currently. -- Brooks Lindsay 23:53, 26 June 2008 (CDT)
Definitely draw arguments that are relevant from the legalization-of-marijuana debate, as you've been doing. Good job. -- Brooks Lindsay 12:52, 27 June 2008 (CDT)
Ok, you will be working systematically, gathering and presenting quotations from this website (the most comprehensive presentation of quotations on the topic in the world) - But all anti-death penalty. Go to the quotes from "politicians" and begin bringing quotes into our structure.
Also, great quotes that you already brought in. There were two separate arguments in these quotes, so I broke them up and presented them in separate argument pages. (Porportional punishment, and accountability arguments pages). -- Brooks Lindsay 12:57, 2 July 2008 (CDT)
Do the above task
Do the above task. That's where you should focus. Read through all of the "politics" quotes from the website I provided and integrate them one-by-one into whatever argument page they belong. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:29, 2 July 2008 (CDT)
I want you to cut-and-paste the quotes from the following website (http://freenet-homepage.de/dpinfo/politicians.htm) into the debate article, into the specific argument pages where they belong. -- Brooks Lindsay 14:12, 2 July 2008 (CDT)
No, they are making arguments, but sometimes, yes, they are short. For example, one I saw was this: "The cost of doing it is as burdensome to the judicial system as a whole court system we're looking at an excess of a million dollars for a case." It should go in the following argument: Argument: Capital punishment wastes time and energy and burdens courts. -- Brooks Lindsay 16:18, 2 July 2008 (CDT)
Good work. I didn't experience the problem with the left column when I just checked, but I've seen that happen before, somewhat randomly, so I know what you're talking about. Return to the page to see if it is still occurring. It was the decriminizing Marijuana debate, correct? All the best.
Why don't you move to Debate:Cluster bomb ban. This is a brand new debate, so I really want to see you elevate this article to a high level. Start by presenting five pro and five con articles on the topic in the pro/con resources section of the article. Then proceed by reading these articles and by integrating pro and con arguments and quotations into the article. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 16:03, 18 July 2008 (CDT)
Assignment, Cluster bombs
Hey there Jing, I want you to help flush out this argument
By reading all the articles in the "supporting articles" section on that page, and incorporating supporting quotations and evidence into the argument page.
-- Brooks Lindsay 22:49, 22 July 2008 (CDT)
Hey there "active editor"
Just realized that I hadn't listed you as an "active editor" on our Debatepedia:Active editors page. Just did so. Keep up the good work, and weekly edits. Best. -- Brooks Lindsay 13:34, 28 July 2008 (CDT)
Great work on the Cluster bomb debate. In general, all thumbs up!!! One comment: Keeping argument claims (headers/titles) short is one of the most artful and difficult things we do. You wrote, Demining cluster bombs is dangerous and deprives a lof of demining workers' lives. This is good. But, here's how I would shorten it: Demining cluster bombs is very dangerous and costs lives. Just keep it real simple.
Next, do you have a preference for your next assignment? Think about it. Or, I can assign you something. Best, -- Brooks Lindsay 14:28, 28 July 2008 (CDT)
Cool. Take up the Falkland Island debate: Debate:Falkland Islands, return of. This was taken from the Debatabase. Please start by going through the existing content, and creating very short argument headers for each specific argument. Because these arguments from the Debatabase are often jumbled together, you may have to divide up paragraphs. -- Brooks Lindsay 10:48, 29 July 2008 (CDT)