User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

September 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm AmaryllisGardener. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Climate change in China without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2013[edit]

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edit to Fashion design, unexplained removal of content, has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe i didn't make myself clear in the edit summary. I thinks it's probalamatic to have the sub-topic "Star system" solely consists of quotes and extrapolations from a single source. Presumably this is because the idea of a 'star system' - a term not explained in the text - is a creation of the author being quoted which makes the topic NPOV. I noted unencyclopedic language and badly structured because it's unusual for a whole sub section to be composed just of quotes without any context or analysis or even attribution of the author. As is stated in the text itself, "a conception of a designer as a 'creative genius' disconnected from social conditions is central for the working of the fashion system" and yet this 'central conception' is not defended and is only ever mentioned immediately before it is dismissed as a myth. Perhaps the viewpoint of the author and his 'star system' could be condensed and integrated better into the article somewhere else but I'll leave that up to you. (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I am sorry that I caused you to have to explain it in more detail. I was somewhat misled by the fact that there was a source for the content. I should have looked at it more carefully because your edit summary was enough to show your point. I am removing my warning (by the preferred method of strikeout) because it was inappropriate. I am sorry for the mistake. I think I will just restore your deletion since I don't think I can write anything that would not depend on the single source already given.Donner60 (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
OK. I'll leave this up to you as this is not a subject I know much about. Cheers. (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

For catching that. I still think of them as intertwined but I agree we should be clear it's not completed suicides.Saltybone (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The oversight is understandable and often made. As suicide attempts/ideation and completed suicide can have different causes and may or may not be correlated, I think it's important to maintain the distinction. If you find any studies concerning completed suicide rates for LGBT youth I'd appreciate a link as my own search was unsuccessful and it's an area of interest to me. I could help add the relevant information if you wanted. The article could definitely be improved on this front. (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's clear clear that there is a connection to ideation and attempts to completed suicide. I think it would help to make that more clear.Saltybone (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)