BiasReverter (talk | contribs) →June 2022: Reply Tag: Reply |
SilentResident (talk | contribs) →June 2022: notify |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
:My edits are not disruptive in the least. The small section I deleted was false. It makes it seem like Turkey is part of the same agreement but has a different "unique interpretation" of the agreement. This seriously makes no sense and is very misleading. Turkey does not need such an interpretation, they are not disputing what the agreement says. They have no reason to, they never signed any agreement. Also choosing to use "refused" instead of "decline" is misleading, as it has a slight nuance of refusing to do a required or obliged action. Turkey has every right to not sign any agreement that they are requested to join. |
:My edits are not disruptive in the least. The small section I deleted was false. It makes it seem like Turkey is part of the same agreement but has a different "unique interpretation" of the agreement. This seriously makes no sense and is very misleading. Turkey does not need such an interpretation, they are not disputing what the agreement says. They have no reason to, they never signed any agreement. Also choosing to use "refused" instead of "decline" is misleading, as it has a slight nuance of refusing to do a required or obliged action. Turkey has every right to not sign any agreement that they are requested to join. |
||
:In your edit summary you said Turkey's view is that islands cannot have an EEZ shelf, etc. which is true. But that's not what the section I deleted says. It says Turkey's view is a "unique interpretation" of the agreement which they did not sign. That is why it is misleading and should stay deleted. Besides "Turkey's view" is literally already mentioned in the above paragraph, there's no need to rewrite it misleadingly. [[User:BiasReverter|BiasReverter]] ([[User talk:BiasReverter#top|talk]]) 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
:In your edit summary you said Turkey's view is that islands cannot have an EEZ shelf, etc. which is true. But that's not what the section I deleted says. It says Turkey's view is a "unique interpretation" of the agreement which they did not sign. That is why it is misleading and should stay deleted. Besides "Turkey's view" is literally already mentioned in the above paragraph, there's no need to rewrite it misleadingly. [[User:BiasReverter|BiasReverter]] ([[User talk:BiasReverter#top|talk]]) 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
{{uw-3rr|Aegean dispute}}--- <span style="text-shadow:#CCC 0.1em 0.3em 0.3em; font-family: Trebuchet MS">[[User:SilentResident|❖ ''SilentResident'' ❖]] <sup>([[User talk:SilentResident|talk ✉]] | [[Special:Contributions/SilentResident|contribs ✎]])</sup></span> 15:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:21, 8 June 2022
Hello, BiasReverter, and Welcome to Wikipedia!
Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 03:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Introduction
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
- Frequently asked questions
- Cheatsheet
- Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
- The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
- Help pages
- Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
June 2022
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Aegean dispute. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- My edits are not disruptive in the least. The small section I deleted was false. It makes it seem like Turkey is part of the same agreement but has a different "unique interpretation" of the agreement. This seriously makes no sense and is very misleading. Turkey does not need such an interpretation, they are not disputing what the agreement says. They have no reason to, they never signed any agreement. Also choosing to use "refused" instead of "decline" is misleading, as it has a slight nuance of refusing to do a required or obliged action. Turkey has every right to not sign any agreement that they are requested to join.
- In your edit summary you said Turkey's view is that islands cannot have an EEZ shelf, etc. which is true. But that's not what the section I deleted says. It says Turkey's view is a "unique interpretation" of the agreement which they did not sign. That is why it is misleading and should stay deleted. Besides "Turkey's view" is literally already mentioned in the above paragraph, there's no need to rewrite it misleadingly. BiasReverter (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Aegean dispute shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 15:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)