1,767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 1:
Line 1: − ==Very nice work== − − Bravo[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]]!! Very nice work. Cleaned it up real good like. Nice and neutral w/o the pejorative aspects of its former self. (I'm not a big fan of the "chip on the shoulder" tone that many articles here seem to have.) − Again nice work. We'll have to get a list of winners and maybe flesh it out with a box or something. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 11:42, 18 March 2007 (EDT) − −
Whoops, removing double entry
YO! [[User:Sid_3050]], the sentence, ''"In two cases, the Nobel Prize was denied to the person most responsible for the discovery apparently..."'' meaning the discovery of ''what'', exactly? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 17:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
YO! [[User:Sid_3050]], the sentence, ''"In two cases, the Nobel Prize was denied to the person most responsible for the discovery apparently..."'' meaning the discovery of ''what'', exactly? [[User:Cracker|Cracker]]<sup>[[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]]</sup> 17:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:...why are you asking ME? I didn't add that sentence. Check the edit history. However, the two cases are shown in the following paragraphs. For what it's worth: The article doesn't state what discovery Hoyle should have received a Nobel Prize for, ''as I pointed out in my edit summary''. General advice: Chill out, yo. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:...why are you asking ME? I didn't add that sentence. Check the edit history. However, the two cases are shown in the following paragraphs. For what it's worth: The article doesn't state what discovery Hoyle should have received a Nobel Prize for, ''as I pointed out in my edit summary''. General advice: Chill out, yo. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)