Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Aesthetic criticism is a part of aesthetics concerned with critically judging beauty and ugliness, tastefulness and tastelessness, style and fashion, meaning and quality of design—and issues of human sentiment and affect (the evoking of pleasure and pain, likes and dislikes). Most parts of human life have an aesthetic dimension, which means ...
The vast majority of positive results about computational problems are constructive proofs, i.e., a computational problem is proved to be solvable by showing an algorithm that solves it; a computational problem is shown to be in P by showing an algorithm that solves it in time that is polynomial in the size of the input; etc.
Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers. Users who engage in edit warring risk being blocked or even banned. An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable.
Thus, any edit that is not deliberately unconstructive was not in "bad faith", even if it turns out to be unconstructive. The following things are not "bad faith": Honest mistakes; Errors; A typo or misspelling, even if it changes the meaning of the sentence; Not knowing how to format wikitext; Not knowing how to cite sources
Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. This may extend over a long time on many articles.
The problems for the employer are that constructive dismissal is a contractual claim, which can be made in a tribunal for up to £25,000 or in court without limit, and, by dismissing constructively, it by definition misses out on the correct procedure meaning that even if the reason was fair, the decision was probably not, and so an unfair ...
The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.
The McLeod is not a spade.. Note that it is a bad idea to publicly label the opponent a troll, or a vandal, or a POV warrior, or a history revisionist, or a censor, or a member of a cabal, or a "jerk", or a drama queen, or a fool.