Talk:Conventions (theatre): Difference between revisions
imported>Launt Thompson (→We, us) |
imported>Launt Thompson (→We, us) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Is there a way to re-craft this without the "we" and "us" language? It gives it too much of a personal rather than "encyclopedic" tone, I think. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 00:06, 23 August 2007 (CDT) | Is there a way to re-craft this without the "we" and "us" language? It gives it too much of a personal rather than "encyclopedic" tone, I think. —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 00:06, 23 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
Thanks of breaking up the paper and putting in the box. I didn't know how to do this. | |||
I've taken your suggestion and edited the 'wes' and 'uss' though I'm not sure the paper is any better for it. Rather, than an "encyclopedic tone' I thought of citizendium as a compilation of the peoples wisdom. Sanger suggests we be bold and the 'encyclopedic tone'does not seem to sit well with the notion of boldness. But not to worry. It may well be that this paper is simply not suitable for citizendium. It has to be the case that sometimes we try but fail. It's no big deal, I wont be insulted.[[User:Launt Thompson|Launt Thompson]] 04:48, 24 August 2007 (CDT) | I've taken your suggestion and edited the 'wes' and 'uss' though I'm not sure the paper is any better for it. Rather, than an "encyclopedic tone' I thought of citizendium as a compilation of the peoples wisdom. Sanger suggests we be bold and the 'encyclopedic tone'does not seem to sit well with the notion of boldness. But not to worry. It may well be that this paper is simply not suitable for citizendium. It has to be the case that sometimes we try but fail. It's no big deal, I wont be insulted.[[User:Launt Thompson|Launt Thompson]] 04:48, 24 August 2007 (CDT) | ||
Revision as of 03:50, 24 August 2007
We, us
Is there a way to re-craft this without the "we" and "us" language? It gives it too much of a personal rather than "encyclopedic" tone, I think. —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:06, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
Thanks of breaking up the paper and putting in the box. I didn't know how to do this.
I've taken your suggestion and edited the 'wes' and 'uss' though I'm not sure the paper is any better for it. Rather, than an "encyclopedic tone' I thought of citizendium as a compilation of the peoples wisdom. Sanger suggests we be bold and the 'encyclopedic tone'does not seem to sit well with the notion of boldness. But not to worry. It may well be that this paper is simply not suitable for citizendium. It has to be the case that sometimes we try but fail. It's no big deal, I wont be insulted.Launt Thompson 04:48, 24 August 2007 (CDT)