I agree, but I believe this comments may be needed when you are not sure in which language the sentence is written.

You have just confirmed my point now. Thank you. ;-)

I would say it in a rather different way:

A(X) = X asks to be a CM
G(X,Y) = an admin Y thinks X is good enough to become a CM
CM(X) = X becomes a CM
A(X) and G(X,Y) -> CM(X)

Let it be

a = AlanF_US
sc = sacredceltic
am = alexmarcelo

Some time ago, we had this conditions

A(a) = true
G(a,am) = true
A(a) and G(a,am) -> CM(a)
Therefore CM(a) = true

A(sc) = false
G(sc,am) = true
A(sc) and G(sc,am) -> CM(sc)
Therefore CM(sc) = false

And in the end
CM(a) and CM(sc) = false

That means AlanF_US is an CM tomorrow and sacredceltic is not. If sacredceltic wanted to be a CM, he would say "yes" to the question "Do you want to become a CM?" (and he would not worry about whether Alan is becoming a CM or not because it's beyond his control) and he would ask to become a CM. That means:

A(sc) = true
G(sc,am) = true
A(sc) and G(sc,am) -> CM(sc)
Therefore CM(sc) = true

And in the end
CM(a) and CM(sc) = true

That means both AlanF_US is an CM tomorrow and sacredceltic is a CM tomorrow. Which is the reason I'd
said you could have been a CM. I think this was what alexmarcelo wanted to impart in his message.

Now we have this situation:

G(sc,am) = false

So you could try something different (if you still want to become a CM):

G(sc, TRANG) or G(sc, sysko)

After this explanation, I believe I made my point clear, so I won't discuss it anymore. Best regards.

Just now you said that there wasn't a condition, but that something was introduced as such by alexmarcelo. I think you are meaning that you have interpreted his message this way. Which could be something different of what he really wanted to say. The basics of logic require that we are sure that premises are sound before we try to prove anything. Your point is mostly based in assumptions, so your conclusions may be wrong.

Of course, alexmarcerlo makes the decision, he is the admin in the first place! Only admin users can promote another user. You've thought you could promote yourself on your own by your unfair impositions? This does look like bad logic for me. You are using the wrong premises. You didn't have any control about Alan's promotion or your own. You only could choose to be or not to be a CM by request. You've condicioned this decision to the condition that Alan would not be a CM. Alexmarcelo had nothing to do with that.

Well, if it was a condition, Alan wouldn't be a CM now, since you haven't agreed with that. The only condition I saw was this one: "Sacredceltic, if you want to become a CM, you just need to ask. Do you want it? Yes or no?". Then, with your behavior, you proved that you are not ready for it. About revising formal logic, I am studying Mathematics at university, this is my last year, I think I don't need to revise anything. What about you?

It doesn't look like a condition to me. Alan would be a CM anyway although you don't like it. I think alexmarcelo was just expecting you to ask to be a CM, which you haven't done until now, at least formally. As I see, you are just making a fool of youself with this blackmail argument.

Parabéns aos novos administradores do corpus e ao novo colaborador avançado.

Well, I'm done. I won't try to understand this issue anymore. It seems like it is not worth it. I'm quite new here, so I'm not sure, but I think sacredceltic is being unreasonable. This is a shame. I'm sure he would be a good CM if he was more understanding.

Well, if this is true (you formally asked to be a CM recently) , why your candidacy was not announced? alexmarcelo, what can you say about this?

Sure, AlanF_US can become a CM since he asked to be one, whether you want to become a CM or you don't. But you can't become a CM before you ask for it.

Eu suponho que foi após a sua candidatura que essa regra passou a valer. Você poderia se candidatar novamente. É possível que dessa vez você seja promovido.

I think this rule was decided after alexmarcelo proposed your candidacy. You could ask to be a CM again. I believe you'll be accepted this time.

FRANÇAIS (Excusez-moi, je ne parle pas français): Peut être considéré comme un contributeur actif qui a créé des phrases dans les 30 derniers jours dans cette langue par exemple. S'il y a suffisamment de contributeurs actifs, il faut un gestionnaire du corpus pour cette langue. S'il n'y a pas suffisamment de contributeurs actifs, il ne faut pas un gestionnaire du corpus pour cette langue. C'est mon avis.

PORTUGUÊS: Pode ser considerado como um colaborador ativo aquele que criou frases nos últimos 30 dias por exemplo. Se houver colaboradores ativos suficientes, então é necessário um administrador do corpus para aquela língua. Se não houver colaboradores ativos suficientes, então não é necessário um administrador do corpus para aquela língua. Essa é a minha opinião.

Combien de contributeurs sont-ils actifs?

Seja bem-vindo!

Obrigado pelo esclarecimento.

Eu gostaria de saber o que acontece quando ocorre a seguinte situação. Dois usuários traduzem frases de dois idiomas distintos para o português e, por acaso, a frase em português é a mesma. Quando alguém pesquisar essa frase em português, aparecerão associadas as duas frases originais? As frases dos dois contribuintes viram uma só? A frase em português fica duplicada?

Welcome, Olya! We hope you'll have a great time here. We also recommend you to read the instructions below. Please, don't forget to fulfill your profile information in order to tatoeba contributors know the languages you speak.

http://blog.tatoeba.org/2010/02...toeba.html?m=1

If you want to know who are advanced contributors, you can look at this page:

http://tatoeba.org/pt_BR/users/all

The only way I know to find if they are native in a specific language is looking at their profiles or you can send a message asking them to update their profiles with this information.

I believe that most users would reply with acurate information. However, like sacredceltic said, you can't be sure if they're saying the truth.

Both of you are right.