Anyway, I prefer London, that's where the damages are the highest, along with the lawyers' fees...

If we don't solve the problem here, we'll have to determine which court will have authority. Maybe in Xinjiang, what do you think? I bet Chinese courts are very lenient on slander...

"Good humour"?
What exactly am I proving? That I don't accept being named in public spaces where I have nothing to do? Or slandered in the same public spaces?
Yes, I do very much prove that.
This matter is very straightforward: The wall is a publicly indexed space where only topics related to the functioning of this service and associated community should appear, to the exclusion of the slandering of its members.
Subsequently, I demand unequivocal public apologies and I request sanctions against the members who have used this space to gratuitously slander me, so they will become unable to do it again in the future.
Does that prove you right, now?

And since when Tatoeba's public wall - fully indexed by search engines - has become a space to vilify specific members of its community?
This practice has a name, it is "public lynching".
Do you clearly realise what you and your friends are doing?

So now your 2 accomplices are mute, and you're always at the center of every one of these games, will you explain to me what this is about and how come I was involved in this, here on the public wall of Tatoeba?

Is the schoolyard full or are we expecting more kids to play here? Obama awaits me, so let's finish this game quickly, please.

I think you must have been drinking other spirits along with your water, tonight...
I'll put it on that for now.

"Fan the flames" ?!? I wasn't even participating in this debate and suddenly my pseudo pops up ON THE WALL without a reason and I am the one to "fan the flames" and requested to send messages when you call me a "poor fish" on this very wall ?!
And who are you anyway to speak in the name of "The community"?
Did you just a make a poll to authorise you to insult me in public?
I haven't received the form, although I am also part of this community, whether you like it or not...

I still don't get why my pseudo would be mentioned in there...

I beg your pardon again. I seem to have been mentioned in your debate. Can you please elaborate?

>OK, maybe channelling sacredceltic a little there

Pardon?

Mods can, but Rockers can't!

Eventually, the Chinese will take over...

No, it's the CIA we're helping, but the FSB is injecting defective translations to counter-attack...

*"déplacer"

Je ne sais pas si il faut d'abord afficher les plus anciennes (parce qu'il y a plein de vieux tromblons...) mais il faudrait peut-être "daplacer" les 10 derniers jours (ou les phrases créées depuis la dernière procédure de déduplication) à la fin...
Voir ce qu'en pensent d'autres traducteurs en masse...

Merci pour ta réponse. Vivement l'ajout automatique de points finaux, ça va résoudre plein de problèmes !
Mais je ne sasi pas si tu avais vu mon message précédent concernant les phrases nouvelles - donc non encore dédupliquées - qui apparaissaient dans les résultats de recherche.
En tout état de cause, à quelle fréquence fais-tu passer la procédure de dédoublonnage ? Le savoir me permettrait d'éviter de traduire des doublons potentiels en regardant leur date/heure de création.
Ce qui est dommage, c'est que ce sont toujours ces dernières phrases, souvent parasites, qui apparaissent toujours en premier dans les recherches...

Je vois de nombreux doublons au point près, c'est à dire que la seule différence est la présence ou non du point final.
La procédure de déduplication ne les considère-t-elle pas comme des doublons ?

Je pense que les phrases qui viennent d'être créées et ne sont pas encore dédupliquées ne devraient pas être disponibles dans les résultats de recherche, parce qu'alors on exacerbe le problème en créant de nouvelles traductions de copies.

What I notice is that many duplicates are created in good faith for 2 main reasons:
1) there are no links between the sentence that are viewed and the desired translations because
a) the deduplication process has failed for some reason.
b) the sentences are not deduplicated because they are the same except for a different name or a unit (problem which I mentioned earlier and which could be solved through conventions)
2) the desired translation is not visible.
This is the case, for example, if you view a list of sentences in L1, translated into L2 and for which no translation exists into L3. This list doesn't enable to see the translations from L2 into L3 when they exist, so the temptation is great to believe that they don't and to recreate them.