| Revision as of 18:21, 24 October 2010 view sourceClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,383,610 editsm Archiving 4 discussions to User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2010/October. (BOT)← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:31, 11 January 2025 view source ClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,383,610 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/2025/January. (BOT)Tag: Manual revert | ||
| (838 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div style="text-align: center;">]</div> | <div style="text-align: center;">]</div> | ||
| {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis | ||
| |archiveprefix=User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/ | |archiveprefix=User talk:Supreme Deliciousness/Archives/ | ||
| Line 9: | Line 8: | ||
| |box-advert=yes | |box-advert=yes | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == You have been nominated... == | |||
| ...] to re-add the illegal clause vis-a-vis the Turkish settlements in NC. Happy clicking. ] (]) 11:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Mass editing and WP:AN/I == | |||
| I've asked for your comment ]. --] (]) 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 ] can be a step in the "cool" direction. --] (]) 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? --] (]) 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. --] (]) 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) | |||
