| Revision as of 13:31, 20 November 2007 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 5d) to User talk:PalestineRemembered/Archives/2007/November.← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:37, 20 November 2007 edit undoKendrick7 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,315 edits →Concerned: there are better ways to handle these long term disputesNext edit → | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| PR, as your mentor, I've been a little concerned about your recent editing. I see a lot of edit warring in your contributions (here's just a few: ) and many of your edits seem to be pushing your own point of view regarding Ariel Sharon. Can I please remind you that edits must be neutral point of view, and revert warring to push your point of view is clearly desruptive. ] 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | PR, as your mentor, I've been a little concerned about your recent editing. I see a lot of edit warring in your contributions (here's just a few: ) and many of your edits seem to be pushing your own point of view regarding Ariel Sharon. Can I please remind you that edits must be neutral point of view, and revert warring to push your point of view is clearly desruptive. ] 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :You might want to try the approach of using tags, such as {{t1|NPOV-section}}, {{t1|disputed}} or the inline template {{t1|dubious}} to force discussion on the talk page. Sometimes this is the only way to move the discussion forwards. After months of back and forth reverts at ] I finally took that approach, and a dialog finally resulted (a simple request for dialog alone, without the tag, didn't work.) Other editors, of course, sometimes just try to remove the tags, but that's usually frowned upon. That should result in some sort of compromise language, without simply reversions back and forth of sourced material. -- ]<sup>]</sup> 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Reviewing Hezbollah == | == Reviewing Hezbollah == | ||
Revision as of 20:37, 20 November 2007
Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Oct 2007, Nov 2007, Dec 2007
Re: mentorship
I've responded at WP:AN. east.718 at 15:20, 11/5/2007
Opinion on source
Beats me as to what Isarig is so upset about. You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the reliability of sources. -- Kendrick7 20:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Gazimestan speech
Hi PR. Your recent edits on Gazimestan speech have been brought to my attention by User:Nikola Smolenski. While I don't know the entire history here, Nikola seems to have brought forth sources supporting the point of view that the emigration of non-Albanians from Kosovo was also due to economic issues, in addition to government (e.g. police) discrimination as described in your source. While I let Nikola know I didn't approve of the deletion of the MacDonald reference, his last edit otherwise seems to better present both points of view in the article text itself. Please review WP:NOPOV in regards to dealing with multiple points of view. Thanks! -- Kendrick7 18:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sure both you and Nikola have learned a lot since March. You should try to get past your previous disputes and work towards something equitable to you both on the talk page. If he has a reliable source which expresses a certain point of view, he's certainly allow to add that information to the article. -- Kendrick7 17:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not about to get involved in yet another series of civil war related issues, and I don't have an opinion on how accurate a gloss he's providing of what his sources say. I'm just telling you the guiding principle is explained WP:NOPOV (an unhelpful shortcut name, which really should be called WP:YESPOV). You should attempt to work out you problems concerning sources or what have you on the article talk page. -- Kendrick7 19:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Soapboxing
please don't: . Jaakobou 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Concerned
PR, as your mentor, I've been a little concerned about your recent editing. I see a lot of edit warring in your contributions (here's just a few: ) and many of your edits seem to be pushing your own point of view regarding Ariel Sharon. Can I please remind you that edits must be neutral point of view, and revert warring to push your point of view is clearly desruptive. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- You might want to try the approach of using tags, such as {{NPOV-section}}, {{disputed}} or the inline template {{dubious}} to force discussion on the talk page. Sometimes this is the only way to move the discussion forwards. After months of back and forth reverts at Operation Defensive Shield#Background I finally took that approach, and a dialog finally resulted (a simple request for dialog alone, without the tag, didn't work.) Other editors, of course, sometimes just try to remove the tags, but that's usually frowned upon. That should result in some sort of compromise language, without simply reversions back and forth of sourced material. -- Kendrick7 20:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing Hezbollah
I read your comment "This is a very poor article..." in GHcool's talk page. I'm exactly canvassing for it to be "peer-reviewed" to attract some wikipedians like you. Can you please explain your idea here.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Salam, Feel free to add whatever should be added in the article with reliable sources. Just remind that the article is too long and we should add everything briefly. Your comments shows you're a little exited. Please pay attention to WP:FAITH and don't write such sentences, If it's our intention to produce a misleading article, then we've done a fine job. We, editors of the article, don't intend to produce a misleading article. I suggest you reading these guidelines:WP:WQT and WP:CIVIL.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)