Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 65: Line 65:       −
::::I'm not sure whether or not that was intended as an insult but if it was it is completely unnecessary.  Whether or not this was written by a historian is irrelevant, poor encyclopedic writing is poor writing.  All it does is reflect the personal, and unsubstantiated, opinions of one person on a very broad subject.  Even if it were cited, the style of this featured article is poor.  Not being cited, I ask again for permission to amend the article in order that it remain as strictly factual as possible.
+
::::I'm not sure whether or not that was intended as an insult but if it was it is completely unnecessary.  Whether or not this was written by a historian is irrelevant, poor encyclopedic writing is poor writing.  All it does is reflect the personal, and unsubstantiated, opinions of one person on a very broad subject.  Even if it were cited, the style of this featured article is poor.  Not being cited, I ask again for permission to amend the article in order that it remain as strictly factual as possible. [[User:Sardonac]]
 
:::::first let's see some proof that you are capapable of good writing. Try writing a new article on a topic of your choice and we'll see.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:11, 5 May 2009 (EDT)
 
:::::first let's see some proof that you are capapable of good writing. Try writing a new article on a topic of your choice and we'll see.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:11, 5 May 2009 (EDT)
  −
:::::Why were my edits removed?  I corrected everything from the intro, including grammar and removing useless statements like "A politician and writer based in Florence of The Renaissance."  I also removed "Was he a Machiavellian?" and shifted it into a "Why he wrote his books" piece so that interpretations of his work could have their own section.
  −
::::::you need to try your hand at your own articles first before reworking major artricles.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:39, 9 May 2009 (EDT)
 

Navigation menu