User talk:Richard Jensen: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Todd Coles (→Reapproval of Nathanael Greene: new section) |
imported>Richard Jensen (how do we reapprove an approved article?) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
The Nathanael Greene article has undergone a fair share of updates since it was approved, mostly spelling and grammar. I'd like to see the cleaned up version get approved if you're up to it. Thanks --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 22:08, 8 January 2008 (CST) | The Nathanael Greene article has undergone a fair share of updates since it was approved, mostly spelling and grammar. I'd like to see the cleaned up version get approved if you're up to it. Thanks --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 22:08, 8 January 2008 (CST) | ||
::yes it's OK by me, but I don't know what the re-approval procedure is? what do we do? [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 23:04, 8 January 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 23:04, 8 January 2008
You're cleaned up
I moved everything to your Archive 2. --D. Matt Innis 21:42, 7 January 2008 (CST)
"Analysis" re:John Edwards
Richard; if it is indeed an analysis then I would recommend backing up this "analysis" with evidence that supports the conclusions rather than just blindly reinstating hyperbole. --Robert W King 10:01, 8 January 2008 (CST)
- Robert, please read the Talk page and the many citations given there. Do you argue that Edwards did NOT change style since 2000??? If so you are defying the experts and you need to find an expert that backs your theory. Richard Jensen 10:20, 8 January 2008 (CST)
Reapproval of Nathanael Greene
The Nathanael Greene article has undergone a fair share of updates since it was approved, mostly spelling and grammar. I'd like to see the cleaned up version get approved if you're up to it. Thanks --Todd Coles 22:08, 8 January 2008 (CST)
- yes it's OK by me, but I don't know what the re-approval procedure is? what do we do? Richard Jensen 23:04, 8 January 2008 (CST)