![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Oh, very well done, Chris! Amandajm ( talk) 05:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit because the convention is that the name of the ship appears first, with the flag afterwards, per all other lists of shipwrecks. No objection to individual wikilinks being removed if you think that there is overlinking, but that edit, whilst made with good intent, was not desirable. Mjroots ( talk) 17:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Chris for doing those edits,most appreciated Richardlord50 ( talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that information I'll try and remember for future reference Richardlord50 ( talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Although I can appreciate unlinking overly linked words in articles I have seen several cases were you, IMO, took the delinking a little too far. For example I just reverted your edits to Francis D. Rauber were I believe one link of each is appropriate. Particularly linking United States of America under the allegiance in the Infobox. There are in fact a number of United States of X and since not all readers of the pedia are from the USA I do not agree that we should assume that they all would undeerstand. It is to me a bad assumption to make. -- Kumioko ( talk) 15:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this edit of yours is helpful either: mass-delinking place names in a list of places isn't the best of ideas. I can't think of a sensible way to undo this edit though - thanks [sarcasm, sorry] for lumping two scripts together... Der yck C. 11:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review my edit here in which I reverted some -- not all -- of the changes you made here. In the specific context of this article (and the corollary G8 summit articles), links to the national participants seem justified, helpful, appropriate. After further reflection, perhaps you begin to see my point?
Compare my edit here at 12th G-15 summit which restored Brazil. Please note that among the participants, you had de-linked Brazil only. -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Your de-linking may be an arguable improvement across a wide range of articles, but I disagree with de-linking (a) countries and (b) offices in the context of this specific article and others like it, e.g., 2010 G-20 Toronto summit.
Please notice my edit here which reverted changes in two sub-sections only: (a) Core G15 participants and (b) Guest participants.
The identification of "core" participants is (a) consistent with the format of other summit articles and (b) responding to previous disputes about the composition of international summits, e.g.,
My views about the restoration of office-related hyperlinks are explained above at
38th G8 summit
User talk:Colonies Chris#38th G8 summit-above. --
Tenmei (
talk)
15:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not participate, nor did I really understand the threads about Spain and Canada on the G8 talk page; but I did understand that this was a dispute which didn't need to be a dispute. Similarly, I didn't appreciate the fine points of similar arguments in other contexts, but I do recognize the value in averting an avoidable problem in advance -- ergo, "core" participants, etc. Do I need to try to explain again in different words? Are we not on the same page?
Please note my edit here which acknowledges your legitimate concern. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
If A and B are sets and every element of B is also an element of A, then: B is a subset of (or is included in) A, denoted by B⊆A.
In future --with an added sentence or two (plus inline citation support) -- the sub-heading can be restored. The distinction between "core" membership and others in these international groupings has been and is likely to continue as a recurrent theme. Something to do with the Colombo summit in 2012 may generate articles which will address this directly. We'll see.
Do the Euler diagrams help clarify the meaning of our words? -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps In September, I may try to create
11th G-15 summit using our discussion here as guide. I will be sure to alert you so that your comments can help improve the format and structural foundations for
10th G-15 summit,
9th G-15 summit, etc. --
Tenmei (
talk)
16:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
A page you have edited has been involved in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If you wish to take part please click here. Some of the editors working on it have been accused of being sock puppets including myself, information on that can be found here. UrbanTerrorist ( talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Burrn! requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Christian and Jericho 09:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Colonies Chris, you recently removed a deletion tag from Burrn!. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot ( talk) 09:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
Burrn! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be
deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burrn! until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Christian and Jericho 11:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Oh, very well done, Chris! Amandajm ( talk) 05:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted your edit because the convention is that the name of the ship appears first, with the flag afterwards, per all other lists of shipwrecks. No objection to individual wikilinks being removed if you think that there is overlinking, but that edit, whilst made with good intent, was not desirable. Mjroots ( talk) 17:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Chris for doing those edits,most appreciated Richardlord50 ( talk) 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that information I'll try and remember for future reference Richardlord50 ( talk) 20:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Although I can appreciate unlinking overly linked words in articles I have seen several cases were you, IMO, took the delinking a little too far. For example I just reverted your edits to Francis D. Rauber were I believe one link of each is appropriate. Particularly linking United States of America under the allegiance in the Infobox. There are in fact a number of United States of X and since not all readers of the pedia are from the USA I do not agree that we should assume that they all would undeerstand. It is to me a bad assumption to make. -- Kumioko ( talk) 15:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this edit of yours is helpful either: mass-delinking place names in a list of places isn't the best of ideas. I can't think of a sensible way to undo this edit though - thanks [sarcasm, sorry] for lumping two scripts together... Der yck C. 11:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Please review my edit here in which I reverted some -- not all -- of the changes you made here. In the specific context of this article (and the corollary G8 summit articles), links to the national participants seem justified, helpful, appropriate. After further reflection, perhaps you begin to see my point?
Compare my edit here at 12th G-15 summit which restored Brazil. Please note that among the participants, you had de-linked Brazil only. -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Your de-linking may be an arguable improvement across a wide range of articles, but I disagree with de-linking (a) countries and (b) offices in the context of this specific article and others like it, e.g., 2010 G-20 Toronto summit.
Please notice my edit here which reverted changes in two sub-sections only: (a) Core G15 participants and (b) Guest participants.
The identification of "core" participants is (a) consistent with the format of other summit articles and (b) responding to previous disputes about the composition of international summits, e.g.,
My views about the restoration of office-related hyperlinks are explained above at
38th G8 summit
User talk:Colonies Chris#38th G8 summit-above. --
Tenmei (
talk)
15:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I did not participate, nor did I really understand the threads about Spain and Canada on the G8 talk page; but I did understand that this was a dispute which didn't need to be a dispute. Similarly, I didn't appreciate the fine points of similar arguments in other contexts, but I do recognize the value in averting an avoidable problem in advance -- ergo, "core" participants, etc. Do I need to try to explain again in different words? Are we not on the same page?
Please note my edit here which acknowledges your legitimate concern. -- Tenmei ( talk) 16:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
If A and B are sets and every element of B is also an element of A, then: B is a subset of (or is included in) A, denoted by B⊆A.
In future --with an added sentence or two (plus inline citation support) -- the sub-heading can be restored. The distinction between "core" membership and others in these international groupings has been and is likely to continue as a recurrent theme. Something to do with the Colombo summit in 2012 may generate articles which will address this directly. We'll see.
Do the Euler diagrams help clarify the meaning of our words? -- Tenmei ( talk) 15:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps In September, I may try to create
11th G-15 summit using our discussion here as guide. I will be sure to alert you so that your comments can help improve the format and structural foundations for
10th G-15 summit,
9th G-15 summit, etc. --
Tenmei (
talk)
16:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
A page you have edited has been involved in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Mechanism. If you wish to take part please click here. Some of the editors working on it have been accused of being sock puppets including myself, information on that can be found here. UrbanTerrorist ( talk) 14:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Burrn! requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Christian and Jericho 09:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Colonies Chris, you recently removed a deletion tag from Burrn!. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot ( talk) 09:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
Burrn! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be
deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burrn! until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Christian and Jericho 11:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)