Hello there Stevertigo, [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|welcome]] to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to [[Wikipedia:wikipedians|stay]]. If you ever need editing help visit [[Wikipedia:How does one edit a page]] and experiment at [[Wikipedia:Sandbox]]. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions]] or how to format them visit our [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|manual of style]]. If you have any other questions about the project then check out [[Wikipedia:Help]] or add a question to the [[wikipedia:Village pump|Village pump]]. Cheers! --[[user:maveric149|maveric149]]
Hey Steve -- instead of using redirects to sign your talks, why not just use the three tilda trick and set your prefs to show SV (which is probably going to become a [[disambiguation page]] someday for things whose acronym is SV)? No biggie - just want to give you a heads-up on how to do things a bit more easily. Try it <nowiki>~~~ and ~~~~</nowiki>. Chow! --[[User:Maveric149|mav]]
- thanks! - yeah i was curious about that. SV
:No Problemo. --mav
----
depending on one's definition of propaganda and revisionism one could read that either way! hehe [[User:Lir|Lir]] 03:49 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)
how'd u determine that I was a she?
lol
----
Hey Stevertigo, this is perhaps a little pedantic, but do you think [[intuitive understanding]] should really be just a link to [[grok]]? I admit that both topics might make for worthwhile articles; the latter already seems to be one. But it seems to me that the two do not have the same meaning, at least much of the time; if anything, intuitive understanding seems a broader (and more problematic) topic than grok. I propose that we delete the former article until someone wants to write independent content for it. --[[User:Ryguasu|Ryguasu]] 23:10 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)
Ok, lacking a response from you, I've nominated the page on [[Wikipedia:Votes for deletion]]. Please object there if you really want the page preserved. --[[User:Ryguasu|Ryguasu]] 08:08 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
----
You're welcome -- and thank ''you''! [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]
----
Its like shaolin kungfu, except without the kungfu! [[User:Vera Cruz|Vera Cruz]]
---
The one problem with that move is that 1871-1914 are really very arbitrary. [[User:Vera Cruz|Vera Cruz]]
----
Sv, thanks for your note. It's amazing that we (almost) agree on something. :) Let me know if you come up with any "deep thoughts" about how best to separate the "facts" from the "beliefs". How blatant does the separation need to be? I'm sure there are ''some'' potential Wikipedia readers who will ignore every instance of "Raelians think that" and "Rael claims that", and take the ideas and claims as facts. But we of course can't cater to the most careless reader imaginable. I don't at present have explicit theories about how to do this; it's all very case-by-case. --[[User:Ryguasu|Ryguasu]]
-----
------
I should hope that I have some influence over this article. After all, I wrote the vast majority of its content. I agree with 131 since “New Imperialism” is a very commonly used term in historiography to refer to this era specifically. The introductory paragraphs, thanks to some additions to my original text, make this point abundantly clear almost ad nauseam. The term “High Imperialism” is popular as well in reference to this era, but is less common. The version that he keeps restoring also makes the point that New Imperialism had inextricable links the breakdown of Pax Britannica.
[[User:172|172]]
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by the Wikimedia Foundation or any of its affiliates. In fact, we fucking despise them.
|
