User talk:Vaxine19: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
m Rephrase |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Check out my website too: http://vaxine21.googlepages.com |
Check out my website too: http://vaxine21.googlepages.com |
||
= |
= On Whether Wikipedia Scholarly = |
||
* I'd like to state my opinion that Wikipedia is Scholarly though perhaps not in the most traditional sense. Rather I think that it is scholarly in an interesting and new sense that is an iteration of the traditional notion of the word Scholarly.[[User:Vaxine19|Vaxine19]] ([[User talk:Vaxine19#top|talk]]) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
* I'd like to state my opinion that Wikipedia is Scholarly though perhaps not in the most traditional sense. Rather I think that it is scholarly in an interesting and new sense that is an iteration of the traditional notion of the word Scholarly.[[User:Vaxine19|Vaxine19]] ([[User talk:Vaxine19#top|talk]]) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
** For certain, it claims some of its page to be scholarly. [[User:Vaxine19|Vaxine19]] ([[User talk:Vaxine19#top|talk]]) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
** For certain, it claims some of its page to be scholarly. [[User:Vaxine19|Vaxine19]] ([[User talk:Vaxine19#top|talk]]) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 21:58, 16 May 2013
My Name is ATrain. Don't wear it out! Check out my website too: http://vaxine21.googlepages.com
On Whether Wikipedia Scholarly
- I'd like to state my opinion that Wikipedia is Scholarly though perhaps not in the most traditional sense. Rather I think that it is scholarly in an interesting and new sense that is an iteration of the traditional notion of the word Scholarly.Vaxine19 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- For certain, it claims some of its page to be scholarly. Vaxine19 (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)