Talk:Adams
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Terrorist victims
edit(1) I do not know what the above is supposed to be. Why mention that man here on the talk page?
(2) I do not think Adams is a classic disambiguation page, and so I do not understand why there is a disambiguation notice: The list of links clearly shows that there are no misleading links whatsoever. <KF> 07:07, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Revert by User:JHunterJ
editThis persists in a large cut from this page. I have discussed this matter in several places on the site with User:JHunterJ (his talk page, pages associated with the AfD he has placed on Allen (surname), and the general issue on the talk page at WP:MOSDAB. This should be enough to persuade anyone that the large cuts here are contentious. Charles Matthews 12:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I replaced the "cut" with a link to the list of people by name Adams, and that took place before much of the discussion you cite, which is still ongoing, of course. I have not changed any other surname pages since and won't until the discussion is done (if then). -- JHunterJ 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Tell me then: when it says at the bottom of WP:MOSDAB that For every style suggestion above, there's some page which has a good reason to do something else, does this aspect of the issue not interest you at all? That actually instead of the certainties you put forth, we might here be a working community contributing along slightly different perspectives, for sure, but actually able to co-operate? Because the supposed 'absolutes' people bring up in arguments are no such things. You have to know that cutting large parts of the work of others is not exactly compatible with this other sort of approach, which doesn't somehow assume that we are sitting in rows in a large office, with directives coming down from the top floor.
Charles Matthews 16:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it interests me. And thanks to these discussions I'm now aware of some of the reasons, but I still do not understand your recasting WP:BOLD actions as policy wonkiness or cubicle mentality. -- JHunterJ 17:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)