Can you explain why you replaced these self references? Wikipedia generally has a policy against self referential comments. Thanks, Mark Richards 23:18, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- The key English word here is "generally". But there are some valid exceptions. Besides, you removed some links and some text with no excuse. Mikkalai 23:58, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The following item
- Identify the political party with each of the following three policy statements ...
looks unfinished. Is it intentional, or I am not ready for the Britishness test yet?-) Mikkalai 00:34, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Looks unfinished to me too - that's how I found it, not sure of the source. Mark Richards 00:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- Also, I removed the Act of Union link because it has nothing to do with the last time Britain was invaded. Perhaps you can explain why you think this is relevant? Mark Richards 01:00, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- No. The burden of proof when removing claims of facts is yours. Someone put it here, thinking it is relevant. May be it was relevant at these times and now it is void. Maybe someone had in mind something else, and your notice would have warned him. Putting aside an issue of politeness with respect to the former author, explaining yourself is an element of natural cooperation in protection against vandalism. Anyone can come and delete anything. So people have to be constantly vigilant. When someone sees a removal, a red flag pops up. When an explanation is attached, there are infinitely more chances that a person who did so knew what he had been doing. When you will write a several dozens of articles which each and other lurker tries to "improve", you will *feel* the problem, not simply understand it. Mikkalai 02:55, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
It's hard to tell from your comment whether you agree with the removal or not. Contrary to your assertion, I think that before you acuse someone of wrongly removing 'facts' you check them yourself. Thanks for your vigilance. Mark Richards 03:01, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- There is a difference between adding a fact and removing a fact. Basically, both cases require verification. But it the latter case there is an additional factor: you are implicitely saying that someone had made an error. Therefore a principle similar to that of Presumption of innocence kicks in: it is your burden of proof that he was wrong.
- Therefore there is also a good habit here when removing statements that looke like facts, however ridiculous they look, they are copied into the talk page, just to be on the safe side. In my experience there were a couple of such cases when deletion was caused by a typo or misreading, and it was possible to easily fix the statement. Mikkalai 03:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The last invasion of Britain was a fairly pointless effort by the French Revolutionaries under American Revolutionary leadership in February 1797, 90 years after the first Act of Union and 4 years before the second. I fail to see what either Act had to do with it. Don't be scared to delete nonsense without comment. If you're wrong, rest assured that discussion will ensue. -- Derek Ross
- Don't be scared, but pay some respect. Of course, if you see someone writes that Old King Cole had 11 wifes, no one will object your deletion. In many other cases quite a few people are distracted to check whether you are right or you are a vandal. A dozen of words releaves the pressure. By saving yourself 30 seconds of typing you make a whole crowd to be on extra alert. Mikkalai 03:24, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This article imples that this is on its way, rather than proposed... Is that the intent? If so, when will it be implemented? How well would one have to do to become a citizen? Who will grade them? What is the official correct answer to What does it mean to be a good neighbour?. Just curious... Tuf-Kat 03:33, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)
- I have had little to do with this page, but my understanding is that the 'Britishness test' is a proposal being debated in the UK now as something that might be appropriate some time in the future. Whether it will become reality, when, and it's putative content, are, I believe, unknown to all. The content of this page is speculation by UK media and politicians about what might go into such a test. Mark Richards 04:15, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- What does it mean to be a good neighbour? Tuf-Kat "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho..." The Good Samaritan from Luke's gospel. Sorry, couldn't resist... ; ) Wooster 08:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Life in the United Kingdom test/Archive 1" page.
