Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Notable Mutualists"
From Anarchopedia
Joel.davis (Talk | contribs) (eh I wasn't sure what else to call it.) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| − | RE: "Notable?" ~ [User:joel.davis] | + | RE: "Notable?" ~ [[User:joel.davis]] |
Well my intention with "notable" was mostly to just indicate not just run-of-the-mill mutualists, or people who just happen to be considered mutualist but are worthy of a page for other reasons. So basically I was running low on other qualifiers and just anticipated "notable" would be interpreted as meaning someone who has done work in the field, I'm not married to the idea though if you want to change it. | Well my intention with "notable" was mostly to just indicate not just run-of-the-mill mutualists, or people who just happen to be considered mutualist but are worthy of a page for other reasons. So basically I was running low on other qualifiers and just anticipated "notable" would be interpreted as meaning someone who has done work in the field, I'm not married to the idea though if you want to change it. | ||
Latest revision as of 19:38, 9 January 2008
Notable[edit]
I don't really like the term "Notable" as it's very subjective and probably depends on whom you ask to define the term. I think we should just stick to calling it Mutualists. ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) 2007 December 23 15:37 (UTC)
RE: "Notable?" ~ User:joel.davis
Well my intention with "notable" was mostly to just indicate not just run-of-the-mill mutualists, or people who just happen to be considered mutualist but are worthy of a page for other reasons. So basically I was running low on other qualifiers and just anticipated "notable" would be interpreted as meaning someone who has done work in the field, I'm not married to the idea though if you want to change it.
