User talk:Vedexent/archive2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
[edit] Dyson Sphere
My pleasure. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC) [edit] Re: Footnote levels?There's really no such thing as having too many footnotes, in my opinion (with the proviso that multiple footnotes for a single sentence should be combined into a single note, so there's a natural limit of [# of sentences] footnotes for an article). Even if there was, ~60 would certainly not be a reasonable upper limit; see, for example, this article. (Having said that: have you considered using "
[edit] Rome (TV series)Thank you very much for your helpful feedback on the talk page about the episode list I was editing. You made a very good point on the formatting of other tables to match as well. Per your suggestion, I've been working on those too. Would you mind taking a peek at those additional tables and providing me feedback, yet again? They are now located on the same page as the original list, which in turn is located here. Though I am hoping for any and all feedback, I also am in particular need of feedback on the multiple use of "no image" links under secondary characters. I personally don't like it and wondered if by chance you might have an idea. Should I merge the summary section for each, until a photo is found? (x-posted to the Rome talk page) MagnoliaSouth | Talk 07:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC) [edit] Re: Third Servile WarYep, that's why; I suspect it will pass easily once the issue brought up there has been fixed. :-) Kirill Lokshin 04:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Mmm, please feel free to put it up! (If there are any other issues with the article, I doubt you'll find them without subjecting it to the full FAC gauntlet, in any case.) Kirill Lokshin 14:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC) [edit] Fermi Paradox and "logic 101"I haven't involved myself with this article for a while, but I saw your edit summary comments and took a look at the content of the edits in question. I'd like to point out that the content of your edits, and those that you're arguing against, do not match your comments. Your "opponent" is not stating that anything--a negative or otherwise--has been proven; he's only saying that the theory your edits describe is not supported by current science. Furthermore, It isn't correct to say that "a negative cannot be proven." Any statement, including a provable one, can be stated as a negative (the square root of 9 is not 42). Even the in type of speculation where people tend to bring up the cliche' that a negative cannot be proven, the cliche' is often incorrect. Those who believe there is a Loch Ness Monster might say "you can't prove it doesn't exist." But you can: just drain the lake and check for any monsters flopping around in the mud. KarlBunker 02:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC) [edit] Re: FAC commentHi Vedexent - yes you should take it as a compliment. I did want to read more, and maybe an "analysis" or future impact section would have been useful to add. I know the sources are limited, so its perfectly ok. Rama's arrow 16:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC) [edit] Third Servile War -resultsSpartacus and Declining Slavery will add more. Wandalstouring 20:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC) [edit] Re: Wow
[edit] Re: MACV-SOGThanks for the advice. As you can see, I was intelligent enough to follow some of it. Did some grad work in the subject area, but at the time (the mid-80s) there just wasn't enough primary source material out there. Worked on a history of the Joint Chief's involvement in the escalation period for my master's thesis instead. Have always been fascinated by the tantalizing puzzle of SOG. Spent years prying it apart and putting it back together again. RM Gillespie 03:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC) [edit] WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006
This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 20:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC) [edit] Re: The Citizendium.ProjectPersonally, I have no intentions of participating in Citizendium. Aside from the fact that I consider forks to be a bad idea in general (see below), I have no formal education in anything resembling history, so my participation there would necessarily be as a second-class citizen. I'd much rather work in an (admittedly flawed) system where everyone has at least the potential to work on an equal level than one where anyone without a suitably long CV is relegated to grunt work. More generally, forks tend to be very drastic things. Not only is there a split of the community, but, more fundamentally, a split of the encyclopedia itself. Nobody will actually bother merging changes to one copy of the article into the other, because it would simply be too much work to keep them synchronized. Insofar as Wikipedia functions as a market externality—in other words, where the benefit for someone to use it is proportional to the number of other users—creating a split version will lead to poorer-quality material in both, since the overall number of editors fixing things will be smaller in each case. (Although the flaws will likely be in different topic areas.) (All this quite aside from the practical problems with Sanger's proposal. The requirement of using real names is extraordinarily problematic; the effect will be that articles which are controversial—particularly where certain additions may provoke legal (or extra-legal!) reprisals—will simply be abandoned.) Kirill Lokshin 16:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC) |
||||||||||||
