Talk:Paul Voermans
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Untitled
editThe following sentence seems ambiguous to me: Without heavy scientific element, this work could be considered slipstream fiction written from the "inside" of the field.
Does it mean that the book lacks any "heavy scientific element" and can therefore be considered slipstream? Or does it mean that the book could have been considered slipstream but for having a heavy scientific element? (I can't remember the book well enough to disambiguate based on my own knowledge of it.) Metamagician3000 14:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Though such memory as I have suggests that the former meaning was intended. Yes? No? Metamagician3000 14:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I preferred the other photo, the Easter 2006 one, but I'm biased I guess. ;) Metamagician3000 06:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject class rating
editThis article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 00:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Proposed merge of Draft:Paul Voermans into Paul Voermans
editDraft contains more information than article, and can be used to expand draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)