User talk:Paul

Hi Paul,

just responding to some of your note to claire.

Three things:

1. I think that your view on the need for only one link in a page to a particular person is a good idea on short pages. But I think that a case can be made for more than one on longer pages.
2. I tend to think the opposite on links to empty pages. The red links show what needs doing, are automatically turned blue when a page appears (saving any retrospective changes) and it is a useful way of assessing what pages are most needed via the 'wanted pages' page
3. I think that we should all try and use the # for as this is the best system available to us at the moment and that the numbered list aids referencing. If the issue ios that the numbers do not match, then the objective should be make them match. this implies both using 'Ibid.' or repeating refs or eliminating numbered refs in the text - eg changing [url] to [url title] or relocating the ref to the bottom.

What do you think?

--David 20:55, 22 Jun 2007 (BST)

He actually quotes the article that had been altered under pressure, not the original, and makes it appear as if the outrage had been about his milder statements. --Idrees 16:27, 17 Jul 2007 (BST)

maybe this needs to be clarified...

Maybe the paragraph needs to be clarified -- it struck me as if something was odd. Kind rgds Paulo