User talk:Ro Thorpe: Difference between revisions
imported>Ro Thorpe (test) |
imported>Ro Thorpe |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
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: | :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. | 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. | ||
Revision as of 18:26, 9 September 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)
Thanks for your help on Sirius
I just learned how to use the + to make a new topic so my note is out of order above this new topic. Yours, Gary Leonard Cameron 23:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Rationale
Not sure you got this. Point is it's ration-ahl, not ration-aily. Leave it to you to put it in your code. Peter Jackson 08:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I overdid the French, as your 'ration-ahl' reminds me, but I omitted any Latin because there is more than one standard: at my school, for example, it was 'rátìón-àlè'. Ro Thorpe 13:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- The actual classical Latin pronunciation would have been (roughly) Ratty O'Nally. Church Latin Ratsy O'Nally. But there are rules for the pronunciation of Latin words adopted into English. However, I only mentioned this as you didn't seem to understand, which you do now. Peter Jackson 09:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, thanks. Ro Thorpe 13:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)