| Revision as of 14:14, 19 March 2006 editOjw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,296 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:07, 19 March 2006 edit undoChris Chittleborough (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,016 edits →VDH: Reply to User:OjwNext edit → | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
| ==VDH== | ==VDH== | ||
| On ] talk page, I wrote a bit about why his response to Gary Brecher's article wasn't particularly noteworthy. Since you re-added the link, I wondered if there should be a better explanation on that talk page of why to include it? ] 14:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | On ] talk page, I wrote a bit about why his response to Gary Brecher's article wasn't particularly noteworthy. Since you re-added the link, I wondered if there should be a better explanation on that talk page of why to include it? ] 14:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Yeah. I should have responded to you, but I never got around to it. I apologise. My view is that VDH was not trying to ''rebut'' Belcher, nor even to ''reply'' to Belcher's essay, just ''responding'' to Belcher. | |||
| :Incidentally, the main reason that 26-Aug-2005 essay stuck in my mind was the second footnote. | |||
| :While writing this reply, I realised what I did wrong a month ago, and fixed it: the 26Aug2005 NRO essay is now only mentioned once, with a parenthetical note tying it to Gary Brecher's essay. I hope you approve. (Of course, this now means that anyone who deletes that link to Brecher's essay, like ] did, will "break" the article.) | |||
| ::—] 16:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:07, 19 March 2006
Please Note
- Please add new items at the bottom of this page.
- Whenever I write anything on another User Talk page, I will Watch that page. Replying there instead of here will make the exchange much easier to follow. (I got this idea from User:Plugwash.)
Welcome!
Hello, Chris Chittleborough, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - DS 22:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Brian Leiter
Hi Chris. I agree with your revision. As it stands, the links section looks fine. Sir Paul 08:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- (Responding to this comment, before I added the "Please Note" section above.)
US vs. U.S.
Hi, Chris. Check out Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations. It specifically endorses the "U.S." usage over "US". —Cleared as filed. 00:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh. So it does. I should have looked there. -Chris Chittleborough 03:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Hi! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship (did you know that "adminiship" is not an English word? Unbelievable!). It ended with a tally of (51/0/0). As an administrator, I hope to better help this project and its participants: if you have any question or request, please let me know. - Liberatore(T) 12:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
VDH
On Victor Davis Hanson talk page, I wrote a bit about why his response to Gary Brecher's article wasn't particularly noteworthy. Since you re-added the link, I wondered if there should be a better explanation on that talk page of why to include it? Ojw 14:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah. I should have responded to you, but I never got around to it. I apologise. My view is that VDH was not trying to rebut Belcher, nor even to reply to Belcher's essay, just responding to Belcher.
- Incidentally, the main reason that 26-Aug-2005 essay stuck in my mind was the second footnote.
- While writing this reply, I realised what I did wrong a month ago, and fixed it: the 26Aug2005 NRO essay is now only mentioned once, with a parenthetical note tying it to Gary Brecher's essay. I hope you approve. (Of course, this now means that anyone who deletes that link to Brecher's essay, like User:71.103.214.70 did, will "break" the article.)