User talk:Ro Thorpe: Difference between revisions
imported>Ro Thorpe No edit summary |
imported>Gary Leonard Cameron (Thanks and question for Ro) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Hi, Ro: I really appreciate your help. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 02:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | Hi, Ro: I really appreciate your help. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 02:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
:Appreciation appreciated, thanks for the note. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 13:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | :Appreciation appreciated, thanks for the note. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 13:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
Hi Ro, Thanks for editing [[Sirius]]. If I think [[Sirius]] needs it I'll clarify absolute visual magnitude's relationship to luminosity. I'm really grateful for you catching that. | |||
My better half is urging me to crank out short contributions for the practice and to complete some articles CZ has listed as being wanted. At times I'm dictating information while shaving as she types. She's urging me to embrace the Zeitgeist of crowdsourcing improving CZ articles. I'm withholding judgement for now on the wisdom of working that way. | |||
I do have a serious question for you. I'm wondering who my audience is. I'm currently picturing an college audience but college audiences vary considerably. At times I have to explain what atoms are to business and management students in class. I'd like basic cultural information to be very accessible when I write. This has the additional advantage of allowing me to write very short article during my breaks. | |||
What's the background of the ideas that have been floated regarding the audience for articles? I'm supposing some people advocate getting simpler articles done more quickly while other think it's best to write slowly but with more depth than what can usually be found on the internet. Am I correct in assuming this? Also, what's your opinion? | |||
Sincerely, [[User:Gary Leonard Cameron|Gary Leonard Cameron]] 23:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:21, 1 May 2012
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Use in English | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Alphabetical word list | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Retroalphabetical list | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Common misspellings |
Thanks for your corrections to Atmospheric science
Hi, Ro: I really appreciate your help. Milton Beychok 02:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Appreciation appreciated, thanks for the note. Ro Thorpe 13:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Ro, Thanks for editing Sirius. If I think Sirius needs it I'll clarify absolute visual magnitude's relationship to luminosity. I'm really grateful for you catching that.
My better half is urging me to crank out short contributions for the practice and to complete some articles CZ has listed as being wanted. At times I'm dictating information while shaving as she types. She's urging me to embrace the Zeitgeist of crowdsourcing improving CZ articles. I'm withholding judgement for now on the wisdom of working that way.
I do have a serious question for you. I'm wondering who my audience is. I'm currently picturing an college audience but college audiences vary considerably. At times I have to explain what atoms are to business and management students in class. I'd like basic cultural information to be very accessible when I write. This has the additional advantage of allowing me to write very short article during my breaks.
What's the background of the ideas that have been floated regarding the audience for articles? I'm supposing some people advocate getting simpler articles done more quickly while other think it's best to write slowly but with more depth than what can usually be found on the internet. Am I correct in assuming this? Also, what's your opinion?
Sincerely, Gary Leonard Cameron 23:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)