User talk:Robbiemuffin/Burmese constitutional referendum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi, the recent edit you made to Burmese constitutional referendum, 2008 has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for stopping by. :) I've left a note of your page because tyo be honest I'm not sure if you will get a "new message" notification when I reply here, but I am replying here as well and then will go back to the topic page. To my knowledge, Template:Fact marks are useful particularly when the material is unsourced, or when the cited material is not in agreement with the source material. I've read the source material for that sentence, and searched, and find it is being misrepresented in the wikipedia article. That's why I put the Template:Fact marks in.
- I'm going to go back and reinstate those marks, and I invite you to come to the talk page for the article, where you'll find the changes were well documented. Hi again and, welcome to wikipedia! Robbiemuffin (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Click the [6], then click the highlighted link. You should get here, the info referenced is in the second and third paragraphs of the news story there. The Wikipedia article doesn't seem to be mis-representing the information. I have removed the {{fact}} tags based on this. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I did that. The article doesn't agree. The article says 3 weeks before, not during. And the article says that the local media was full of items to support a yes vote, not the national media. I don't dissagree that these could well be facts, just that they are not what is written in the cited article.
- Do you know that there is a Talk page on each article in wikipedia where you can discuss factual issues about the article? Personal disagreements can move into the user pages if they must continue, but the first place to go is the talk page for the article. Robbiemuffin (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I do know that - I'm not new. There's not much of a point in having the discussion on the talkpage unless it's important to everyone interested in the article - which I believe it isn't. However, if you want to have the discussion on the talkpage, I'm more than happy to comply. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- 3 weeks before as in before the referendum, not the campaign for it. And they probably use "local" because most editors aren't Burmese. But yeah, that should be changed. As a matter of fact, probably now. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you Calvin, great edits. Robbiemuffin (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- 3 weeks before as in before the referendum, not the campaign for it. And they probably use "local" because most editors aren't Burmese. But yeah, that should be changed. As a matter of fact, probably now. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I do know that - I'm not new. There's not much of a point in having the discussion on the talkpage unless it's important to everyone interested in the article - which I believe it isn't. However, if you want to have the discussion on the talkpage, I'm more than happy to comply. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 00:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Click the [6], then click the highlighted link. You should get here, the info referenced is in the second and third paragraphs of the news story there. The Wikipedia article doesn't seem to be mis-representing the information. I have removed the {{fact}} tags based on this. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
