| Revision as of 16:57, 12 August 2005 editPmanderson (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers62,752 edits →New edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:09, 13 August 2005 edit undoUltramarine (talk | contribs)33,507 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| ==New edit== | ==New edit== | ||
| I agree that it should have been pruned for length and detail. So have the other editors who have contributed to it, with one memorable exception. I thank ] for his bold pruning, and will in general defend it. I do not expect this version will need deletions. I think it would be useful to document these on this talk page; but I do consider that there are no longer, meaningfully, two versions, and therefore that the edit restrictions I have been unilaterally observing are moot. ] 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC) | I agree that it should have been pruned for length and detail. So have the other editors who have contributed to it, with one memorable exception. I thank ] for his bold pruning, and will in general defend it. I do not expect this version will need deletions. I think it would be useful to document these on this talk page; but I do consider that there are no longer, meaningfully, two versions, and therefore that the edit restrictions I have been unilaterally observing are moot. ] 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ==Violation of Misplaced Pages policy== | |||
| Septentrionalis, you have violated Misplaced Pages policy both by deleting the two-version template without consensus and by achieving the discussion when there were unresolved discussions. ] 16:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:09, 13 August 2005
 | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
 | Democratic peace theory received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
Archives of this page are at Talk:Democratic peace theory/Archive 1. This should be read by any new editor of this page. Most of them are Septentrionalis explaining edits and User:Ultramarine protesting that the page would only be NPOV if it defended one particular version of DPT. Septentrionalis 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
New edit
I agree that it should have been pruned for length and detail. So have the other editors who have contributed to it, with one memorable exception. I thank User:Robdurbar for his bold pruning, and will in general defend it. I do not expect this version will need deletions. I think it would be useful to document these on this talk page; but I do consider that there are no longer, meaningfully, two versions, and therefore that the edit restrictions I have been unilaterally observing are moot. Septentrionalis 16:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Violation of Misplaced Pages policy
Septentrionalis, you have violated Misplaced Pages policy both by deleting the two-version template without consensus and by achieving the discussion when there were unresolved discussions. Ultramarine 16:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Categories: