Jump to content

Talk:Tin Tun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

removal of verified and sourced content

[edit]

I have referenced and sourced all that is in the article-the reference section at the bottom has been there since the article was created, those are the sources-everything in there is verified. Chris 20:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please tag them accordingly. Okkar 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Facts

[edit]

That the fellow is "one of the pioneers of the now-extinct Scouting movement in that nation" is not encyclopedic unless it can be sourced from an independent resource, and at any rate is not encyclopedic, it makes the article read like a fansite. Source it or remove it. Okkar 14:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a retaliatory edit for what I placed at Tin Oo. Knock it off, I did source it. Chris 17:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I dont see any citation. If you cannot source it properly, I suggest you remove it. No citation, No source, not credible enough to mention on wikipedia. Okkar 18:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also

[edit]

See also is for articles related to this one and Tin Tun was a political prisoner too, so Ye Htoon and Min Ko Naing are legitimate listings there.Rlevse 10:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please make it clear it is the "political prinsioner" part that "see also" was referring to. Currently the way it is seems to potray Ye Htoon and Min Ko Naing as scouts, which is definately not the case here. Therefore it is misleading to general public that Min Ko Naing or Ye Htoon supports scouting movement. Please refrain from misleading the public. Okkar 20:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the Wikipedia Manual of Style (Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also), you would see that " 'See also' is the most appropriate place to link a Portal with "portal"." I have reverted Okkar's edit because it was unfounded and addition of that portal does not in any way imply that those political activists are Scouts. The portal is in the See also section so readers interested in reading more on on the Scouting movement can do so. --Hintha 21:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, they are legit see also listings as see also is for all aspects of the article and that portal tags go there, which does not mean that the portal applies to everything in see also.Rlevse 21:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, it stated that "Related topics should be grouped by subject area for ease of navigation. Also provide a brief explanatory sentence when the relevance of the added links is not immediately apparent" - therefore the appropiate relevances should be explained. In this case, no explanations were made nor provided, instead the article tries to mislead Min Ko Naing and Ye Htoon as scouts. This seems to me is a deliberate attempt to draw attention of particular user base (in this case - scouting fans) to politically motivated causes which has no relevance whatsoever with Wikipedia. Therefore, unless proper explanations are added according to Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also, the "See Also" section of this article should be removed. Okkar 22:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are many cases of portal tags being in a see also section with unrelated links. It is not worthwhile to make a section of only a couple of links separate from a section with one link.Rlevse 00:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the real reason then why was Hintha using Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also as reason to revert my edits? If we are to adhere by Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also guide lines, then there must be a brief explanation in "See Also" section to ensure that general public does not feel confuse or mislead. It seems to me that a lot of people are bending the rules and guide lines of Wikipedia to suit their arguements. Also, it may not be worthwhile in your view, but that doesnt mean the rest of the general public shares this view. It is not only confusing but also misleading by tying political activists to scout movement, which clearly no longer exists in Myanmar. Seeing as we can no longer reach an agreement, I would like to propose that we put this article through mediation process to resolve this.Okkar 09:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tin Tun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tin_Tun&oldid=1232837763"