Content deleted Content added
Shalom11111 (talk | contribs) |
Reply. |
||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
:4- "you doesn't want too se ... I am interesting of knowing" is terribly poor English, please improve your grammar before making other similar confusing entries on this encyclopedia, as this is just one of many examples. Thanks. |
:4- "you doesn't want too se ... I am interesting of knowing" is terribly poor English, please improve your grammar before making other similar confusing entries on this encyclopedia, as this is just one of many examples. Thanks. |
||
:[[User:Yambaram|Yambaram]] ([[User talk:Yambaram|talk]]) 23:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
:[[User:Yambaram|Yambaram]] ([[User talk:Yambaram|talk]]) 23:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC) |
||
:: The English wasn't good, as I wrote fast as I was on my way out and I just came home, but it's not what it's discussed and you shouldn't say something when you for some weeks ago tried to defend yourself at the noticeboard by pointing to your language skills. |
|||
:: So why didn't you give a reason to why it shouldn't be included except for that you think I'm "promoting the article"? You are not familiar with the guidelines. It doesn't have "to be the most relevant ones", the policy says "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". There are many links in the article about the Palestinian exodus but this article (about Jewish localities depopulated during the Holocaust) was included because, as I've explained to you here and you ignored, it was relevant and is connected to the topic because many of the Jewish refugees went to Palestine, which was helped by what happened to the Palestinians. So yes, the linking makes sense. |
|||
:: Lastly, the section "See also" comes before "References". It seems typical of you to throw out accusations after confusing things up and imagine things, which was last seen for some hours ago in our other discussion, and it wasn't long ago you vandalized my talk page and made unwarranted threats and then refused to apologize. I don't expect an apology now either but please stop with your unfounded accusations. Thanks. I am not "promoting the article" and not moving things to a specific place just because I want that specific thing come first. So silly and embarrasing. I have other things to use my time on. --[[User:IRISZOOM|IRISZOOM]] ([[User talk:IRISZOOM|talk]]) 00:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:34, 8 February 2014
Judaism Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Linking to the 1948 Palestinian exodus
Yambaram is removing the link to List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus under See also. I don't understand why. It could be useful for the readers to read about a similar topic. There is a link to this topic in the article about the 1948 Palestinian exodus and there has been made a pretty good case to why it include it there (many Jewish refugees took over Palestinian homes) so why not link it here too? Leave the politics aside and explain why we shouldn't include it and do you then also think we should the link there to here or is it just that you doesn't want too se what happened to Arabs? I am interesting of knowing your postion. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- 1- Do not tell me that I am "reverting just for the sake of that" [1]. That's the first accusation you got wrong here.
- 2- You added a link to this article, saying "Adding link to See also. That link also links here so why not use on here too", and then you moved the "see also" section up, above the "References" one. [2] Does that seem like neutral editing to anyone?
- 3- There are hundreds of articles that could be "useful for the readers", and that's why this article only has the most relevant ones, which the article "List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus" is not. According to you, we should also add the article Kurdish villages depopulated by Turkey to the "see also" section. You have to understand that two wrongs don't make a right - so if that article has a link to here and you think it should be deleted from there, do so.
- 4- "you doesn't want too se ... I am interesting of knowing" is terribly poor English, please improve your grammar before making other similar confusing entries on this encyclopedia, as this is just one of many examples. Thanks.
- Yambaram (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- The English wasn't good, as I wrote fast as I was on my way out and I just came home, but it's not what it's discussed and you shouldn't say something when you for some weeks ago tried to defend yourself at the noticeboard by pointing to your language skills.
- So why didn't you give a reason to why it shouldn't be included except for that you think I'm "promoting the article"? You are not familiar with the guidelines. It doesn't have "to be the most relevant ones", the policy says "The links in the 'See also' section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics". There are many links in the article about the Palestinian exodus but this article (about Jewish localities depopulated during the Holocaust) was included because, as I've explained to you here and you ignored, it was relevant and is connected to the topic because many of the Jewish refugees went to Palestine, which was helped by what happened to the Palestinians. So yes, the linking makes sense.
- Lastly, the section "See also" comes before "References". It seems typical of you to throw out accusations after confusing things up and imagine things, which was last seen for some hours ago in our other discussion, and it wasn't long ago you vandalized my talk page and made unwarranted threats and then refused to apologize. I don't expect an apology now either but please stop with your unfounded accusations. Thanks. I am not "promoting the article" and not moving things to a specific place just because I want that specific thing come first. So silly and embarrasing. I have other things to use my time on. --IRISZOOM (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)