| Revision as of 18:21, 24 October 2010 view sourceClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,383,013 editsm Archiving 4 discussions to User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2010/October. (BOT)← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:32, 24 October 2010 view source Jiujitsuguy (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers5,155 edits →Edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| :::Some people have tried to find an agreement on how the settlement articles have to reflect the legality issue in balanced and NPOV manner (addressing the "undue weight" claims, international/palestinian/israeli POVs and so on). It never gone too far for people seem to be more interested in edit wars rather then consensus seeking. --] (]) 22:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | :::Some people have tried to find an agreement on how the settlement articles have to reflect the legality issue in balanced and NPOV manner (addressing the "undue weight" claims, international/palestinian/israeli POVs and so on). It never gone too far for people seem to be more interested in edit wars rather then consensus seeking. --] (]) 22:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| "Israeli settlements in the PT/GH are regarded as illegal by the international community." No npov or undue weight violation there as its presented as the the view by the international community. If the miniority Israeli view must be in the article then we can ad "though Israel disputes this." at the end of the sentence. --] (]) 22:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | "Israeli settlements in the PT/GH are regarded as illegal by the international community." No npov or undue weight violation there as its presented as the the view by the international community. If the miniority Israeli view must be in the article then we can ad "though Israel disputes this." at the end of the sentence. --] (]) 22:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ==Edit summary== | |||
| {{cquote|{{Summary}}}} | |||
| *On the above subject, I hope you can consistently provide an edit summary for each and everytime you conduct an edit here on Misplaced Pages. Note that the article page of ] happens to be one of those highly conspicuous ones, and thus, always end up on the dinner plates of vandals and mischief-makers alike. As such, many editors such as myself has it on our watchlist, so for the sake of the community please stop being lazy, work with us by sticking to what I just told you, unless you don't mind being accidentally branded a vandal, which can be avoided in the first place by playing according to the rules.--] (]) 22:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:32, 24 October 2010
/
You have been nominated...
...together with Nab to re-add the illegal clause vis-a-vis the Turkish settlements in NC. Happy clicking. Chesdovi (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Mass editing and WP:AN/I
I've asked for your comment here. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. Let me share my thoughts. Since I'm still working on developing telepathy, I can't tell if your edits were done in wp:point mood or in clean and pure intention, so I can't blame you. However, intentionally or not, you've provoked Chesdovi (which was looking for troubles anyway), raised questions about yourself on AN/I, and got your edits to GH settlement articles reverted. As any other involved editor you know that I-P domain is a minefield, so I call you to consider your steps more wisely. After all there is a lot of fun in editing Misplaced Pages, it's up to us to keep it the cool way or to turn it to time-wasting battle. I believe this discussion can be a step in the "cool" direction. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have not made any unwise steps lately, if you are referring to my edits at the GH settlement articles, they are all wise, me adding notable, relevant and well sourced information. Can you summarize that long discussion at WPIPCCAI? was there consensus that we can not ad to settlement articles that the international view is that they are illegal? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- Some people have tried to find an agreement on how the settlement articles have to reflect the legality issue in balanced and NPOV manner (addressing the "undue weight" claims, international/palestinian/israeli POVs and so on). It never gone too far for people seem to be more interested in edit wars rather then consensus seeking. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have not made any unwise steps lately, if you are referring to my edits at the GH settlement articles, they are all wise, me adding notable, relevant and well sourced information. Can you summarize that long discussion at WPIPCCAI? was there consensus that we can not ad to settlement articles that the international view is that they are illegal? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
"Israeli settlements in the PT/GH are regarded as illegal by the international community." No npov or undue weight violation there as its presented as the the view by the international community. If the miniority Israeli view must be in the article then we can ad "though Israel disputes this." at the end of the sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit summary
| “ |  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.
The edit summary field looks like this: Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes) Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Misplaced Pages account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → |
” |
- On the above subject, I hope you can consistently provide an edit summary for each and everytime you conduct an edit here on Misplaced Pages. Note that the article page of Rachel's tomb happens to be one of those highly conspicuous ones, and thus, always end up on the dinner plates of vandals and mischief-makers alike. As such, many editors such as myself has it on our watchlist, so for the sake of the community please stop being lazy, work with us by sticking to what I just told you, unless you don't mind being accidentally branded a vandal, which can be avoided in the first place by playing according to the rules.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)