| Revision as of 00:09, 15 October 2009 editMoogwrench (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers4,032 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:11, 15 October 2009 edit undoRicoCorinth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,566 edits →Moogwrench's Talk Page: respNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
== Edit war warning == | ||
| '''2009 Honduran Constitutional Crisis Edit War (I guess)''' | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''{{#if:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] 23:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ''']'''{{#if:2009 Honduran constitutional crisis|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the ]. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to ] to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. Please stop the disruption, otherwise '''you may be ] from editing'''. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] 23:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :Just to repeat what I placed on your talk page, RicoCorinth: Why did you revert my reversion on the ], in which you say that "Politicing among a handful of US Congressmen, is" irrevelant to International Reaction to the Crisis? Why does the Washington Post, as well as a number of other organizations, write long articles about how Repubs are messing up Obama's chance to have a unified US reaction? Did you not even read the article I cited in the my revision? Quote: " actions have complicated the strategy of the Obama administration... The administration is pressing for a negotiated solution in Honduras and worries that the de facto government is trying to run out the clock until the Nov. 29 presidential election -- with the support of its allies in Washington." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100802288.html?wprss=rss_world/centralamerica I actually think that the Republican actions are substantial part of US reaction? What do you think? ] (]) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | :Just to repeat what I placed on your talk page, RicoCorinth: Why did you revert my reversion on the ], in which you say that "Politicing among a handful of US Congressmen, is" irrevelant to International Reaction to the Crisis? Why does the Washington Post, as well as a number of other organizations, write long articles about how Repubs are messing up Obama's chance to have a unified US reaction? Did you not even read the article I cited in the my revision? Quote: " actions have complicated the strategy of the Obama administration... The administration is pressing for a negotiated solution in Honduras and worries that the de facto government is trying to run out the clock until the Nov. 29 presidential election -- with the support of its allies in Washington." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100802288.html?wprss=rss_world/centralamerica I actually think that the Republican actions are substantial part of US reaction? What do you think? ] (]) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::No. I don't think a few republicans playing politics is a substantial part of the US reaction. It's mostly an internal matter, and it's not just about Honduras. And yes, I've read all about, but it's bigger than just about Honduras. They're playing politics. That's all. They haven't gotten a bill passed. I think it's more relevant to the United States, domestically. These members of Congress are a small part of Congress, which is only one-third of the federal government of one country. The US position is still that the coup was illegal and that the US does not recognize the interim/ ''de facto''/ coup-installed/ coup government. | |||
| ::I was going to write, "Politicking among a handful of US Congressmen, is" a small fraction of 1/3 of one country's government, and ]. | |||
| ::Same thing goes for the Congress's Legal Research service. It's not the US's position, and it's not an ], and it declared that exiling Zelaya was unconstitutional. -- ] 01:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:11, 15 October 2009
Edit war warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Rico 23:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Just to repeat what I placed on your talk page, RicoCorinth: Why did you revert my reversion on the 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, in which you say that "Politicing among a handful of US Congressmen, is" irrevelant to International Reaction to the Crisis? Why does the Washington Post, as well as a number of other organizations, write long articles about how Repubs are messing up Obama's chance to have a unified US reaction? Did you not even read the article I cited in the my revision? Quote: " actions have complicated the strategy of the Obama administration... The administration is pressing for a negotiated solution in Honduras and worries that the de facto government is trying to run out the clock until the Nov. 29 presidential election -- with the support of its allies in Washington." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/08/AR2009100802288.html?wprss=rss_world/centralamerica I actually think that the Republican actions are substantial part of US reaction? What do you think? Moogwrench (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- No. I don't think a few republicans playing politics is a substantial part of the US reaction. It's mostly an internal matter, and it's not just about Honduras. And yes, I've read all about, but it's bigger than just about Honduras. They're playing politics. That's all. They haven't gotten a bill passed. I think it's more relevant to the United States, domestically. These members of Congress are a small part of Congress, which is only one-third of the federal government of one country. The US position is still that the coup was illegal and that the US does not recognize the interim/ de facto/ coup-installed/ coup government.
- I was going to write, "Politicking among a handful of US Congressmen, is" a small fraction of 1/3 of one country's government, and Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
- Same thing goes for the Congress's Legal Research service. It's not the US's position, and it's not an WP:RS, and it declared that exiling Zelaya was unconstitutional. -- Rico 01:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)