This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TEN X 10 = 10 X TEN X 10 X ten - 10 X TEN ------> TEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN<3 I'd already started a page called 10:10 Campaign, but I guess this is better. Tdwright ( talk) 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
As The Guardian is a supporter of the organization/action, even their "news" articles are questionable as being WP:RS. Please be careful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The fascistic violent aims of the organisation will not hidden by Wikignomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.120.71 ( talk) 18:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This is constructive addition - non unconstructive. "For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see edit warring)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.120.71 ( talk) 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I see Winston Smith has just disappeared the "amputation" comment.
Great work - Minitruth is quick today.
91.34.167.1 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 22:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC).
Care2 are reporting that 350.org's 10-10-10 event is "completely unrelated" to the group 10:10 (link: http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/violent-climate-video/). Any idea if they have explicitly disowned them yet? -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph on 10:10:10 has to be corrected. It gives the impression 350.org is dissociating itself with 10:10:10, but 350.org website says nothing like that. Quite the opposite, it is promoting the 10:10:10 action day heavily. The only sources in the paragraph are blog posts that do not even make clear claims or have sources. What does this mean: "10:10 are no longer involved in the 10:10:10 day of action." This is nothing that is in the claimed sources. I suggest removal. I also suggest removing the comment by Matt Purple. It is just a random comment on the event by a random writer of a random magazine. I have to assume that the comment has been just added to advertize the mentioned protest and not for any sincere informational purpose. I cannot make the edits myself since I have not been a registered user and the page is semiprotected. -- Zermelo3 ( talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I would consider that press release to be notable in that 350.org pulling its partnership. It should be included in the article. To do otherwise would be omitting an important development as it is symbolic of the controversy/outrage that 10:10 has created. In fact, the section on the controversy appears highly trivialised. Marto85 ( talk) 03:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits in the article. For my part, I admit I did not notice 350.org's press release, because it was already far from the top on their press room web page. I admit it would be fair to mention the contents of the release in the article. However, just by looking at 350.org's front page, it seems clear they are still supporting all kinds of 10/10/10 action. Maybe their press release means they are not supporting further collaboration after this year's 10/10/10? Zermelo3 ( talk) 05:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
References
"On Sunday March 28, 2010, 10:10 launched a new campaign to move the clocks in Britain by another hour, so giving Britain an extra hour of sunlight in the evening rather than in the morning when most people are still asleep."
that link gives no information as to numbers of britons who are asleep in the morning and or evening; the above sentence needs to be removed 86.163.69.84 ( talk) 23:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Please put wp "lock" image on article. 99.181.132.138 ( talk) 06:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Please show wikipedia "lock". 99.35.12.139 ( talk) 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Some sections haven't been touched in years. There is no new information. The climate issue is boiling again, at least in the U.S., and 350.org has never been more vital. What's become of 10:10? Was it just a fad? If not, doesn't anyone care to update the Wikipedia page for this organization? Can you imagine BP not updating its website? C'mon, 10:10 -- step up your game. forestflyer ( talk) 05:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Just adding the edit request tag further to my note above about a proposed redraft of the article to reflect changes in 10:10's work since the last major update in 2011.
For clarity, I'm a 10:10 employee, so this is a COI request. I've copied my earlier message below for ease of reference.
Hi everyone, thanks for raising this and especially to Yeti Hunter for adding an excellent #itshappening section. As a 10:10 employee, I'm aware that this article is painfully out of date, but felt it wouldn't be appropriate to make changes myself. That said, I've written a comprehensive update and published it as a workspace draft here. If anyone would like to review this and use it as the basis for an update, that'd be brilliant. I'll also invite editors on the climate change task force to do the same. Thanks!
Simuove ( talk) 19:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 10:10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 10:10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The organisation recently changed its name to Possible (which I suppose should be added to a disambiguation page). Jojuj ( talk) 18:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Just adding a possibly useful reference, but could not see where it might fit in the main article. [1] RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 19:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
References
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
TEN X 10 = 10 X TEN X 10 X ten - 10 X TEN ------> TEEEEENNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN<3 I'd already started a page called 10:10 Campaign, but I guess this is better. Tdwright ( talk) 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
As The Guardian is a supporter of the organization/action, even their "news" articles are questionable as being WP:RS. Please be careful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The fascistic violent aims of the organisation will not hidden by Wikignomes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.120.71 ( talk) 18:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
This is constructive addition - non unconstructive. "For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see edit warring)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.120.71 ( talk) 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I see Winston Smith has just disappeared the "amputation" comment.
Great work - Minitruth is quick today.
91.34.167.1 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 22:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC).
Care2 are reporting that 350.org's 10-10-10 event is "completely unrelated" to the group 10:10 (link: http://www.care2.com/causes/global-warming/blog/violent-climate-video/). Any idea if they have explicitly disowned them yet? -- Yeti Hunter ( talk) 16:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph on 10:10:10 has to be corrected. It gives the impression 350.org is dissociating itself with 10:10:10, but 350.org website says nothing like that. Quite the opposite, it is promoting the 10:10:10 action day heavily. The only sources in the paragraph are blog posts that do not even make clear claims or have sources. What does this mean: "10:10 are no longer involved in the 10:10:10 day of action." This is nothing that is in the claimed sources. I suggest removal. I also suggest removing the comment by Matt Purple. It is just a random comment on the event by a random writer of a random magazine. I have to assume that the comment has been just added to advertize the mentioned protest and not for any sincere informational purpose. I cannot make the edits myself since I have not been a registered user and the page is semiprotected. -- Zermelo3 ( talk) 22:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I would consider that press release to be notable in that 350.org pulling its partnership. It should be included in the article. To do otherwise would be omitting an important development as it is symbolic of the controversy/outrage that 10:10 has created. In fact, the section on the controversy appears highly trivialised. Marto85 ( talk) 03:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits in the article. For my part, I admit I did not notice 350.org's press release, because it was already far from the top on their press room web page. I admit it would be fair to mention the contents of the release in the article. However, just by looking at 350.org's front page, it seems clear they are still supporting all kinds of 10/10/10 action. Maybe their press release means they are not supporting further collaboration after this year's 10/10/10? Zermelo3 ( talk) 05:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
References
"On Sunday March 28, 2010, 10:10 launched a new campaign to move the clocks in Britain by another hour, so giving Britain an extra hour of sunlight in the evening rather than in the morning when most people are still asleep."
that link gives no information as to numbers of britons who are asleep in the morning and or evening; the above sentence needs to be removed 86.163.69.84 ( talk) 23:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Please put wp "lock" image on article. 99.181.132.138 ( talk) 06:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Please show wikipedia "lock". 99.35.12.139 ( talk) 07:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Some sections haven't been touched in years. There is no new information. The climate issue is boiling again, at least in the U.S., and 350.org has never been more vital. What's become of 10:10? Was it just a fad? If not, doesn't anyone care to update the Wikipedia page for this organization? Can you imagine BP not updating its website? C'mon, 10:10 -- step up your game. forestflyer ( talk) 05:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Just adding the edit request tag further to my note above about a proposed redraft of the article to reflect changes in 10:10's work since the last major update in 2011.
For clarity, I'm a 10:10 employee, so this is a COI request. I've copied my earlier message below for ease of reference.
Hi everyone, thanks for raising this and especially to Yeti Hunter for adding an excellent #itshappening section. As a 10:10 employee, I'm aware that this article is painfully out of date, but felt it wouldn't be appropriate to make changes myself. That said, I've written a comprehensive update and published it as a workspace draft here. If anyone would like to review this and use it as the basis for an update, that'd be brilliant. I'll also invite editors on the climate change task force to do the same. Thanks!
Simuove ( talk) 19:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 10:10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 10:10. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The organisation recently changed its name to Possible (which I suppose should be added to a disambiguation page). Jojuj ( talk) 18:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Just adding a possibly useful reference, but could not see where it might fit in the main article. [1] RobbieIanMorrison ( talk) 19:53, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
References