User talk:89.168.213.42: Difference between revisions
"In a factory state" |
JRNorbergé (talk | contribs) m Freddy Mercury |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The point is to concisely (in as few words as necessary) convey that the puzzle is in the state that is considered solved. Whether or not it is brand new out of the box (which looking at the picture, it is clearly not) or has been scrambled and solved is irrelevant. - [[User:Richfife|Richfife]] ([[User talk:Richfife|talk]]) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC) |
The point is to concisely (in as few words as necessary) convey that the puzzle is in the state that is considered solved. Whether or not it is brand new out of the box (which looking at the picture, it is clearly not) or has been scrambled and solved is irrelevant. - [[User:Richfife|Richfife]] ([[User talk:Richfife|talk]]) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
== Edits to Freddy Mercury == |
|||
You called your edits to the article an "obvious removal of superfluous contribution," but I disagree, so I reverted them (for now). You removed the statement"In 2008,Rolling Stone ranked him number 18 on their list of the 100 greatest singers of all time," which followed a statement explaining that he is cited in contemporary magazines. In this case, the aforementioned statement would be providing evidence, especially because it was sourced (and btw, you left the footnote in the article, but removed the sentence, leaving an unexplained reference point) so I don't think it would be considered superfluous. It certainly doesn't detract from the article. [[User:JRNorbergé|JRNorbergé]] ([[User talk:JRNorbergé|talk]]) 00:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 00:52, 7 June 2009
"In a factory state"
The point is to concisely (in as few words as necessary) convey that the puzzle is in the state that is considered solved. Whether or not it is brand new out of the box (which looking at the picture, it is clearly not) or has been scrambled and solved is irrelevant. - Richfife (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Edits to Freddy Mercury
You called your edits to the article an "obvious removal of superfluous contribution," but I disagree, so I reverted them (for now). You removed the statement"In 2008,Rolling Stone ranked him number 18 on their list of the 100 greatest singers of all time," which followed a statement explaining that he is cited in contemporary magazines. In this case, the aforementioned statement would be providing evidence, especially because it was sourced (and btw, you left the footnote in the article, but removed the sentence, leaving an unexplained reference point) so I don't think it would be considered superfluous. It certainly doesn't detract from the article. JRNorbergé (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)