Talk:COP15, Alternative "texts" divide climate summit

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

You said you wanted comments in the edit summary, so here goes. (It should be noted i'm not a particularly good writer, so take anything i say with a grain of salt). It looks pretty good. Two things i noticed is that WWF should have its full name written out the first time its used (preferably with wikilink). Also, i think "alternative text" should be clarified earlier in the article. For the first little bit, i was confused by what was meant by the phrase. (perhaps use the phrase alternative treaty instead or something). Cheers. Bawolff 20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clicked a button[edit]

Sorry! I clicked a button, not on purpose, and that changed the article. I'll try to reset it, but if I can't - please help me! Skalman (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I reset the mistake. It wasn't so hard. Skalman (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 920533 [Failed][edit]

Title[edit]

"The crux of the biscuit is the Apostrophe(')" — Frank Zappa.

The "text's" what? The "Text's" crazy conditions, or was it meant to be plural? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to be plural. Would you look over the article - what should be changed, can it be expaned with more details. Thanks Mrchris (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief! <something>'s means the following object belongs to <something>. The possessive use of the apostrophe. Which is wrong. there is no apostrophe in the plural texts. I'll see if the text is better in about a half hour after I eat. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved to review. RE: Verifiability: Text claims developing countries don't like this, disputed by FT. - Can not see where the FT claims that developing countries like the text. Mrchris (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]