| Revision as of 07:23, 25 February 2009 editMeteorMaker (talk | contribs)3,353 edits →Alon Shvut← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:32, 25 February 2009 edit undoPedrito (talk | contribs)2,399 edits →WP:RfArb regarding West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
| Thanks for the quick pickup! but now I have a question: since I -- a fairly well-informed and usually careful yet hasty reader as well as being an editor by vocation -- did ''not'' notice that this particular wording was that of a quoted source, how to indicate that this is the reason for the phrasing of the page text (and lede at that)? I'll put a note on the ] and will hail you for further comment there, for the record. Excellent ], outstandingly sourced... and it truly came in handy ], when I was having my morning dose of ]!. ''-- ] (]) 06:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)'' | Thanks for the quick pickup! but now I have a question: since I -- a fairly well-informed and usually careful yet hasty reader as well as being an editor by vocation -- did ''not'' notice that this particular wording was that of a quoted source, how to indicate that this is the reason for the phrasing of the page text (and lede at that)? I'll put a note on the ] and will hail you for further comment there, for the record. Excellent ], outstandingly sourced... and it truly came in handy ], when I was having my morning dose of ]!. ''-- ] (]) 06:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)'' | ||
| == ] regarding ] vs. ] == | |||
| I have started a ] regarding the use of northern/southern ] vs. ] and ]. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request. | |||
| Cheers, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']''' - 25.02.2009 09:32</small> | |||
Revision as of 09:32, 25 February 2009
| This is a subpage of Jayjg's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Thanks for visiting my Talk: page.
If you are considering posting something to me, please: *Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
Comments which fail to follow the four rules above may be immediately archived or deleted. Thanks again for visiting. |
 Archives |
|
no archives yet (create) |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Park Hotel seder attack
I see you have edited this page before, and had dealings with the editor who is now launching a mini-edit war. If you have time, take a look.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Alon Shvut
Hello. I have a question. Pedrito has been removing all references to Judea and Samarea from the geographical location of this settlement and all others, saying that this is according to Talk:Israeli settlement. I have looked there and it seems that there was a long argument, but I could not see any conclusions (but maybe I did not look well enough). Since you were involved in that argument, can you please tell me if there was some policy emerging from that discussion regarding the omission of these names? Thank you. Tkalisky (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's probably one of the most well-sourced facts in WP history. MeteorMaker (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, however I still cannot see the bottom line. Was there any decision to remove all mention of Judea and Samarea from settlement locations? Thanks Tkalisky (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's difficult to comment on that without commenting on individual editors, but FWIW, there are tons of reliable sources for the position that "J+S" are non-compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:NCGN and WP:UNDUE, and none at all for the opposing position. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- That is your opinion (and I respect that), however my question is was there a bottom line to the discussion? Was a policy decided upon? Thanks Tkalisky (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- There was no consensus either way. If there was any consensus it was that editors should not go around switching the terms, something User:Pedrito has decided to ignore. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- MeteorMaker's theories regarding the use of the term "Samaria" were conclusively disproven, and despite his incessant attempts at proof by assertion, there is no consensus to remove either term from any article. MeteorMaker was, in fact, put on restrictions against doing exactly that, and I suspect Pedrito will be as well if he continues. Jayjg 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
- Difficult to argue against an editor that deletes the other side's arguments as "falsehoods", but they are always preserved in history. MeteorMaker (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- That is your opinion (and I respect that), however my question is was there a bottom line to the discussion? Was a policy decided upon? Thanks Tkalisky (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's difficult to comment on that without commenting on individual editors, but FWIW, there are tons of reliable sources for the position that "J+S" are non-compliant with WP:NPOV, WP:NCGN and WP:UNDUE, and none at all for the opposing position. MeteorMaker (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info, however I still cannot see the bottom line. Was there any decision to remove all mention of Judea and Samarea from settlement locations? Thanks Tkalisky (talk) 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Help?
I don't need krep like this. Having a disruptive editor follow me around and disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me and reverting my edits is not what I signed up for. THF (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
AE
Regarding this, you may wish to comment at the related complaint I have made here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Zionist entity
Thanks for the quick pickup! but now I have a question: since I -- a fairly well-informed and usually careful yet hasty reader as well as being an editor by vocation -- did not notice that this particular wording was that of a quoted source, how to indicate that this is the reason for the phrasing of the page text (and lede at that)? I'll put a note on the Talk page and will hail you for further comment there, for the record. Excellent page, outstandingly sourced... and it truly came in handy just now, when I was having my morning dose of good faith!. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
WP:RfArb regarding West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria
I have started a Request for Arbitration regarding the use of northern/southern West Bank vs. Judea and Samaria. Since you have been involved in this debate, I have included you in the request.