Talk:COP15, Alternative "texts" divide climate summit

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)

Clicked a button

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)

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

Review of revision 920533 [Failed]

Revision 920533 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: N/C Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: see comments NPOV: Not ready: seer comments Style: Not ready: see comments Comments by reviewer: Style: "an alleged Danish draft proposal, the "Danish Text"," that's just retarded, if not an outright Bushism. Verifiability: Text claims developing countries don't like this, disputed by FT (Top source) NPOV: Per verifiability. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 920533 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 09:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: N/C Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: see comments NPOV: Not ready: seer comments Style: Not ready: see comments Comments by reviewer: Style: "an alleged Danish draft proposal, the "Danish Text"," that's just retarded, if not an outright Bushism. Verifiability: Text claims developing countries don't like this, disputed by FT (Top source) NPOV: Per verifiability. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Title

"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)

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)

• 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)

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)