Editing Talk:1847: Dubious Study

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png Please sign your posts with ~~~~

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision Your text
Line 1: Line 1:
 
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~-->
 
<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~-->
 
The name of the organisation is suggestive of legitimacy but rather vague.  That would be a red flag for me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.166|108.162.245.166]] 06:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 
The name of the organisation is suggestive of legitimacy but rather vague.  That would be a red flag for me. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.166|108.162.245.166]] 06:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 
"downloaded bi-annually" is misleadingly close to "released bi-annually" --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 07:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 
:but I would understand it as if the Journal was only downloaded twice within a year, i.e. only two people have downloaded (and maybe read) the Journal so far. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.118|162.158.92.118]] 08:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 
 
The National Academy of Proceedings sounds more like a legal document collection than a scientific journal to me. [[User:Gjgfuj|TheSandromatic]] ([[User talk:Gjgfuj|talk]]) 07:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 
 
Although biannual conventionally means twice a year, its conflation with biennial (once every two years) is quite common. It would not be unthinkable that this confusion was intentional. ~~108.162.246.71, 15:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 
:I would only think the confusion was intentional if it was the other way around. If Randall had used "biennially", I could believe the idea was to let people think it was "biannual" - twice a year - but it's even more pathetic, only every two years. To fit in with the rest (letting people read "peer-viewed" as "peer-reviewed" for example) :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.64|108.162.219.64]] 03:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 
 
What size should the references be? 6 pixels is far too small. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.150|141.101.107.150]] 11:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 
:When I saw it yesterday I could ALMOST read it, but I did end up having to zoom in. It's definitely bigger now, I say it's good now. It's bordering on too big for the gag. :) - NiceGuy1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.64|108.162.219.64]] 03:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC) Also my comment! [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)