They listen to us!! (Eureka)

[Tint]

That's the exact link I sourced, yes.

it's not the exact same link^^

you linked to the page, Mahrze to the post on that page (to get such a link you have to press on the "#0" in the upper right corner of the post).

[Ghastly]

it's not the exact same link^^

you linked to the page, Mahrze to the post on that page (to get such a link you have to press on the "#0" in the upper right corner of the post).

I quoted what the topic was to be about. You don't cite a paragraph in a book when citing. Moreover, I already quoted what was sourced. Though we can turn this into a linking 101 class if that's the agenda/priority of this thread now. I notice and know you're trying to help and don't mean it in bad faith but do we have to make it about nuance differences instead of adding to the topic at hand?

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

I quoted what the topic was to be about. You don't cite a paragraph in a book when citing. Moreover, I already quoted what was sourced. Though we can turn this into a linking 101 class if that's the agenda/priority of this thread now. I notice and know you're trying to help and don't mean it in bad faith but do we have to make it about nuance differences instead of adding to the topic at hand?

Your link took me to a page I don't have, since I have more posts per page. If you link the specific post, that alleviates this problem.

[Ghastly]

Your link took me to a page I don't have, since I have more posts per page. If you link the specific post, that alleviates this problem.

But isn't that your problem? If we bought the same book on Amazon and I cited it as Universities require it then it's up to you to adjust your Amazon app to work as it normally does/should. If believing the source is that hard in the first place.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

But isn't that your problem? If we bought the same book on Amazon and I cited it as Universities require it then it's up to you to adjust your Amazon app to work as it normally does/should. If believing the source is that hard in the first place.

Except you didn't link a specific article. What you did is like pointing to the front page of a website and wondering why no one can see yesterdays article. Also, the Kindle will give you actual pages as well as kindle locations, so if you cited a page in a book, I could find it :P The kindle doesn't adjust how many pages there are, just how many words are displayed. That's why they have location, and page.

[Ghastly]

Except you didn't link a specific article. What you did is like pointing to the front page of a website and wondering why no one can see yesterdays article. Also, the Kindle will give you actual pages as well as kindle locations, so if you cited a page in a book, I could find it :P The kindle doesn't adjust how many pages there are, just how many words are displayed. That's why they have location, and page.

1. It wasn't the front page
2. You're once again going into nuances when the sourcing was correct and uses the universal guidelines of citing websites (minus the listing of page)

[Mahrze]

... adding to the topic at hand?

Well, I don't think there's anything to say much about certain pieces having their role restriction lifted unless we can see which of these pieces will see this happening. Maybe it sounds like a gain, but if they focus on gear that is not appealing to me, I'll say "no..." /2cents

In the matter of your quote and adding a link: adding a link prompts someone to double check the context of your quote simply saying "certain pieces will lose role restrictions" can mean many things to many people. Also, links that sends you to a pages won't work the same way for other users; your link sends me to page 2 because I have 40 posts per page, which makes the LLP summary only 2 pages long. So, what I did was add a link for those who might stumble on an issue like mine and would like context to your quote.

But isn't that your problem? If we bought the same book on Amazon and I cited it as Universities require it then it's up to you to adjust your Amazon app to work as it normally does/should. If believing the source is that hard in the first place.

Oh, sweetcheeks... you just don't do that.

[Ghastly]

Well, I don't think there's anything to say much about certain pieces having their role restriction lifted unless we can see which of these pieces will see this happening. Maybe it sounds like a gain, but if they focus on gear that is not appealing to me, I'll say "no..." /2cents

In the matter of your quote and adding a link: adding a link prompts someone to double check the context of your quote simply saying "certain pieces will lose role restrictions" can mean many things to many people. Also, links that sends you to a pages won't work the same way for other users; your link sends me to page 2 because I have 40 posts per page, which makes the LLP summary only 2 pages long. So, what I did was add a link for those who might stumble on an issue like mine and would like context to your quote.

Oh, sweetcheeks... you just don't do that.

So you have nothing to say and just reply to something you can use ctrl + f for?

[Nora_of_Mira]

I quoted what the topic was to be about. You don't cite a paragraph in a book when citing. Moreover, I already quoted what was sourced. Though we can turn this into a linking 101 class if that's the agenda/priority of this thread now. I notice and know you're trying to help and don't mean it in bad faith but do we have to make it about nuance differences instead of adding to the topic at hand?

Lmao, "agenda".

The link tip was super useful actually, a true TIL. Most people would just say "nice, thanks" when someone points stuff like this out but instead we get an OP defending a link format for 5 pages, lmao.

[Fluffya]

They could put the dead penalty on xp earned in the instance rather that total xp. That way it still a penalty but ppl wont get scare to try harder stuffs.

Couldnt get worst that you are as you enter it.