User talk:JamesMSnell

Changes to Atom (standard)

As I mentioned in my change comment, I think that there are a couple of problems with the list of Atom vs. RSS differences in the article:

It goes into excessive technical detail (e.g. the use of xml:lang or namespaces)
It is almost a direct copy of Atom boosterism postings from the past, as linked from the section.

I think that both Wikipedia and Atom itself will be best served by listing the 2 or 3 differences that actually affect most users, instead of burying them in a long list as the article does now. We also have to be careful to try to restore some measure of NPOV to the Atom article. David 19:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Atom DAB

Hihi You reverted my changes, but my changes were only fixing links that point to disambiguation pages...just trying to help :) Legotech (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to why these reversions are taking place, as well. Generally, when one reverts an edit, it is considered courteous to explain why the edit was reverted, especially upon request. The edits appear to me to be helpful and to be good disambiguation repairs, why would you revert those? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "fixed" links were pointing a the "Computer Virus" article, indicating that escaped HTML in an RSS feed was a virus. That was not a good disambiguation. It was an inappropriate edit. Looking that the actual change that was made should have been sufficient to determine that. Here's the actual text of Legotech's edit; there's nothing helpful about it. JamesMSnell ^{Talk to me}

RSS 2.0 may contain either plain text or escaped HTML as a payload, with no way to indicate which of the two is provided. Atom in contrast uses an explicitly labeled (i.e. typed) "entry" (payload) container. It allows for a wider variety of payload types including plain text, escaped HTML, XHTML, XML, Base64-encoded binary, and references to external content such as documents, video and audio streams, and so forth.

My apologies, the disamb page was a little confusing...there were wikilinks in places that (evidently) didn't make sense...I did a little more research and fixed things up so now there is a payload (software) entry. Would that work for you? THANKS for your help! Legotech (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Apache Abdera

The article Apache Abdera has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NSOFT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]