Revision as of 11:16, 16 November 2014 editWidefox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers107,093 edits Warning: Edit warring on Jason Minter. (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:39, 16 November 2014 edit undoWidefox (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers107,093 edits Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)Next edit → | ||
Line 145: | Line 145: | ||
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | ||
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 11:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 11:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC) | ||
==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion== | |||
] | |||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. <span class="vcard"><span class="fn">]</span>; ]</span> 11:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:39, 16 November 2014
Welcome!
|
ERA
Hi, I reverted your sweeping change to this article for a number of reasons, here are a few:
- Blog posts are not suitable sources
- Press releases are not suitable sources
- An article about a company which recycles does not need descriptions of what recycling is or general concepts of recycling - that information is provided via wikilinks
- Despite your edit to the talk page you clearly don't have a NPOV, expanding everything but the controversy section greatly and editing only this one topic is not 'neutral'
- Using weasel words like 'apparently'
- You synthesised refs discussing recycling in general with the ERAs mission statement
- Including needlessly detailed information in contravention of the general manual of style
And so on. I think you should probably avoid editing in this area which you appear to have a close connection with until you're more familiar with Wikipedias rules and guidelines. Cheers, Nikthestunned 09:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I move to dispute your disruption of my fresh attempt to rewrite. I have no connection with this company whatsoever. I have not used any unnecessary positive language for subject or weasel words as you say. Also I move to dispute your claim of sources I have taken from news papers. I request you to read that I have also expanded controversy section much by verifying sources and I here by request you to read the source that is referred as my conclusion is written after reading that. Have you read it or are you just disputing without doing that? I removed one blog source. I advise you not to remove anything such massive in a manner that does not suit civilized persons and let me finish my genuine editing. You are welcome to ask for corrections on subject's talk page or to me but do not disrupt!!! --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I repeat, I have no connection to the subject. I do not even live on the same side of the globe. So if you want to help me, point by point, case by case, ask me to make corrections and I will try my level best as you can see the effort I am doing to alter this subject which was edited by parties from different angles of the subject. I am impartial. In good faith, I have done another NPOV correction of my edit. Mindless approach is not civil --TheSawTooth (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
A warm welcome to Misplaced Pages! Faizan 17:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC) |
Hi and thank you ! --TheSawTooth (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Resilient Barnstar | |
Hi Sawtooth....you have reverted one of my edits Operation Zarb-e-Azb ...(involving cia and u.s) which i think is wrong ... Operation zarb-e-azb is PART of the ongoing U.S. War on Terror. It would be nice of you if you read the article .. War on Terror & Operation Zarb-e-Azb....anyways thanks Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC) |
I move to dispute your revision because they are Afghan militants if the reference is saying that they are from that country. You can not defend your country on Misplaced Pages you have to go and take real action if a fact like this is upsetting you. Misplaced Pages is only trying to report journalism. I do not think it was wrong as I did not remove other militants. --TheSawTooth (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- first of all you removed CIA DRONE from the article...Im assuming you dont know shit about operation. If you scroll down theres a whole section on drone strikes taking out more than 50 militants. Secondly, im not from afghanistan...Im from pakistan. Third...theres a difference between AFGHAN militants and MILITANTS from Afghanistan. last but not least Operation Zarb-e-azb is based in North Waziristan District......as for the cross border attacks they are not Part of the operation...The main mission of the operation is clearing out north waziristan...quote "against foreign and local terrorists who were hiding in sanctuaries in North Waziristan tribal region."(http://www.dawn.com/news/1112909/pakistan-launches-zarb-e-azb-military-operation-in-n-waziristan) just because theres something with sources doesnt mean its part of the article. and its funny how you keep on saying sources when one of the border attack happened in Lower Dir...which is a district far away from North Waziristan.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
When you are tired of your rudeness you can use common sense about militants. Do not implement your opinion on me. --TheSawTooth (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- lol common sense...the cross border attacks are not related to the operation and stop trying to play the blame game...u were rude too. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Then why you gave me barnstar? --TheSawTooth (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- i think you needs to understand that the "cross border" attack are by Tehreek-i-italiban...and that according to intelligence sources. so stop taking blind side .. http://tacstrat.com/content/index.php/2014/06/13/securing-the-durand-line/ Saadkhan12345 (talk) 06:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Regarding my view and your view
I have removed my own view which was (CIA drone strikes should be added in belligerents) ...and your view that afghan militants" should added in belligerents. I think we should resolves the dispute on talk page first. Please refrain from making edits regarding these two until the dispute is resolved on talk page peacefully. Thank you. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I do not have any view on CIA drones. That tag was removed because you always add it in same edit. That is not compromise. --TheSawTooth (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
COIN
Please don't remove the connected template while you are under investigation at WP:COIN, thank you Widefox; talk 21:47, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Do not put tag on me without proof. --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Widefox; talk 22:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
OK --TheSawTooth (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Using a source twice on one page
Hi. Just a quick point re: sources:
- First instance of a reference: <ref name="fooSite">{{cite web|url=http://foo.com |site=Foo |author=Foo}}</ref>
- Next (and any further) instance(s): <ref name="fooSite"/>
Means you don't need to duplicate them =) Nikthestunned 17:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. I am still learning alot and reading your concerns to reply. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Jason Minter for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jason Minter is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jason Minter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Adam in MO Talk 03:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
November 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jason Minter. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Widefox; talk 11:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TheSawTooth reported by User:Widefox (Result: ). Thank you. Widefox; talk 11:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)