| Revision as of 12:26, 4 July 2007 editGhirlandajo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers89,657 edits →Rochford← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:53, 4 July 2007 edit undoGhirlandajo (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers89,657 edits →Rochford: kudos, ClioNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| A fascinating article! Were ''Lord Rochford'' and ] one and the same person? (Nobility confuses and I wouldn't dare wikilink unless confirmed) ---] ] 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | A fascinating article! Were ''Lord Rochford'' and ] one and the same person? (Nobility confuses and I wouldn't dare wikilink unless confirmed) ---] ] 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Nary an inline cite of any kind to be found... ] 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | :Nary an inline cite of any kind to be found... ] 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::And so what? Who said that inline citations are a boon for an encyclopaedia? How many inline citations the Britannica has? --]<sup>]</sup> 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | ::And so what? Who said that inline citations are a boon for an encyclopaedia? How many inline citations the Britannica has? The article is very ''competently'' written, does not contain any controversial claims, that's all that matters here. --]<sup>]</sup> 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:53, 4 July 2007
Rochford
A fascinating article! Were Lord Rochford and William Nassau de Zuylestein, 4th Earl of Rochford one and the same person? (Nobility confuses and I wouldn't dare wikilink unless confirmed) ---Sluzzelin talk 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Nary an inline cite of any kind to be found... Ling.Nut 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- And so what? Who said that inline citations are a boon for an encyclopaedia? How many inline citations the Britannica has? The article is very competently written, does not contain any controversial claims, that's all that matters here. --Ghirla 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)