| Revision as of 06:31, 19 May 2014 editToddy1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers48,623 edits →Comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:49, 19 May 2014 edit undo94.194.205.197 (talk) →CommentNext edit → | ||
| Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
| It would be perfectly reasonable, the ] did not affect me in any way, as I am on an entire continent away, and as I remember, it was not much more interesting news than the average, because it had little to no relevance to anyone in this locality. The other two are even less relevant to me, so your point was largely pointless. If people are openly allowed to be biased in articles, and this is (according to you) openly encouraged behaviour, that will seriously hurt wikipedia in the long term. I think articles should be created in a NEUTRAL point of view, and those who are personally related to the subject ideologically should not have any major decisive force in them. Clearly, neutrality would make more informative articles, or no? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | It would be perfectly reasonable, the ] did not affect me in any way, as I am on an entire continent away, and as I remember, it was not much more interesting news than the average, because it had little to no relevance to anyone in this locality. The other two are even less relevant to me, so your point was largely pointless. If people are openly allowed to be biased in articles, and this is (according to you) openly encouraged behaviour, that will seriously hurt wikipedia in the long term. I think articles should be created in a NEUTRAL point of view, and those who are personally related to the subject ideologically should not have any major decisive force in them. Clearly, neutrality would make more informative articles, or no? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| :But the article you are complaining about is being written in a neutral way by the editor you suggested was too biased to edit it. And when people try posting lies, he/she objects.--] (]) 06:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | :But the article you are complaining about is being written in a neutral way by the editor you suggested was too biased to edit it. And when people try posting lies, he/she objects.--] (]) 06:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Lvivske takes an openly pro-Maidan stance, and deliberately spreads false information, and apparently encourages others to do this. The article is in a strong pro-Maidan POV. | |||
Revision as of 07:49, 19 May 2014
 Archives | |||||||
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 24 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Wikibreak | Third opinion $220 | Chance? | Mediation $220 | Arbitration $240 | Jimbo Wales $200 | In the news $260 | On this day $260 | MediaWiki $150 | Did you know $280 | You are banned! |
| RFA $200 | WIKIOPOLY | FPC $300 | ||||||||
| PERM $180 | POTD $300 | |||||||||
| Community discussion | Community discussion | |||||||||
| Editor review $180 | FAC $320 | |||||||||
| Developers $200 | Rouge admin $200 | |||||||||
| Deletion review $160 | Chance? | |||||||||
| AFD $140 | TFA $350 | |||||||||
| Wikimedia Foundation $150 | Edit war (pay $100) | |||||||||
| CSD $140 | Main Page $400 |
|||||||||
| WP:BANNED Just browsing | WikiProject Spam $120 | UAA $100 | Chance? | AIV $100 | Admin cabal $200 | Teh Drahmaz (pay $200) | AN $60 | Community discussion | ANI $60 | Go Collect $200 salary as you pass  |
Re:Please use the article talk page
The leaflets issue is not about if me or you believe that they are fake or not, that's not the point. The issue is that when both the alleged perpetrators (Donetsk People's Republic) & the victims (Donetsk Jewish community) stated that the pamphlets are an hoax, logically we must qualify them as an hoax, because thats the relevant opinions on that, not yours or mines. And as far as I know reliable sources as The Guardian are used to back the content added to that article, not to be interpreted by other users and their personal POV's on the issue. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 14:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- You do not get it do you! Maybe if you read this you would understand: Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
For your level headed edits and contributions on the Arseniy Yatsenyuk page and talk page. I feel the final result is really something that more accurately reflects the whole picture than before.
Solntsa90 (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
are you going to file a 3RR complaint on the IP or is someone else? --Львівське (говорити) 06:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody had warned him/her. So I have warned her. However, as he/she is editing in good faith, I am not going to revert him/her 3 times in a row. Somebody else needs to be the person doing it.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- they were warned to stop the behavior of the youtube spamming on the 19th, just not a 3rr warning. --Львівське (говорити) 06:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- You have been informed multiple times of the reason for restoring my edits. I would encourage you to carefully review the sources sited before applying summary reverts to my edits.--71.39.6.142 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I have reviewed the YouTube video. I watched it over and over again. My conclusion was that there was no evidence that the sound-track and the video were recorded at the same time.
- You have tried to introduce this stuff so many times, and so many different people have reverted you. My advice is to either get some proper sources, or forget it.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- You have been informed multiple times of the reason for restoring my edits. I would encourage you to carefully review the sources sited before applying summary reverts to my edits.--71.39.6.142 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Clive Ponting may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- 1985, p. 14.</ref> is a British writer, former academic and former senior civil servant.<ref>[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/16/newsid_2545000/2545907.stm Falklands'
- civil servant resigns]. At the time of his resignation from the civil service in 1985, he was a [[Her Majesty's Civil Service#Grading schemes|Grade 5 (assistant secretary) earning £23,000 per year.<
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rinat Akhmetov may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
| List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨) |
|---|
|
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
ArmijaDonetsk
I had already notified ArmijaDonetsk about the ANI report I submitted. Why did you notify him again, if I may ask? RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- The notification you posted on his/her page was dated 17 April 2014. It clearly did not relate to the ANI report you submitted on 8 May 2014. He/she deserved to be notified about the new report you brought to ANI.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Look at the diff I provided. I did not make it on 17 April. That was an entirely separate notice. I made it today. RGloucester — ☎ 05:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but I did not spot that you posted a notice dated 17 April 2014, on 8 May.
- Look at the diff I provided. I did not make it on 17 April. That was an entirely separate notice. I made it today. RGloucester — ☎ 05:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I still think it was and is right that he/she should have a notice posted on his/her user page dated May, so that he/she should know that it was a new report. I am sorry you have taken offense at my actions. I can understand why you feel threatened by his/her conduct. I was going to post supportive remarks on the ANI, but as I was writing them, he/she got a topic ban, so there did not seem any point in posting.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I beg your pardon. I'm not taking offence. I just thought it was curious of you to do so. For me, that posting isn't dated 17 April. It might be one of my time gadgets acting up. I don't know how that could've happened. RGloucester — ☎ 05:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Comment
Hi. Your comment was a little surprising and odd. There was no personal attack on another author, I was only pointing at credibility, I think a simple observation should not be immediately labeled uncivil. I don't think that someone who openly supports the Maidan-coup and the Svoboda party is the best candidate to write about the Donetsk Republic. (Imagine what kind of article for example an IDF soldier would write about the Gaza strip?) Sometimes even if a user is otherwise credible, there might be occasions where they may not be credible, if their personal interests/views conflict with the content of an article. I don't think that it's a good practice to have people write about things that they are clearly opposed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- It seemed like a personal attack to me.
- If you think that there should be a rule that people should not contribute to articles about things they are opposed to, you should bring that up on a noticeboard about conflicts of interest. I do not think you will have any success. Imagine how horrible Misplaced Pages would be if articles such as Murder of Oksana Makar, September 11 attacks, and Pol Pot were restricted to editing by those in favour of the subject.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
It would be perfectly reasonable, the September 11 attacks did not affect me in any way, as I am on an entire continent away, and as I remember, it was not much more interesting news than the average, because it had little to no relevance to anyone in this locality. The other two are even less relevant to me, so your point was largely pointless. If people are openly allowed to be biased in articles, and this is (according to you) openly encouraged behaviour, that will seriously hurt wikipedia in the long term. I think articles should be created in a NEUTRAL point of view, and those who are personally related to the subject ideologically should not have any major decisive force in them. Clearly, neutrality would make more informative articles, or no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.205.197 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
- But the article you are complaining about is being written in a neutral way by the editor you suggested was too biased to edit it. And when people try posting lies, he/she objects.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Lvivske takes an openly pro-Maidan stance, and deliberately spreads false information, and apparently encourages others to do this. The article is in a strong pro-Maidan POV.