Paul Vaurie (talk | contribs) →Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present): new section Tag: New topic |
Tag: Reply |
||
Line 84: | Line 84: | ||
Thank you for leaving an edit summary on your recent edit on [[Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present)]]. However, I strongly disagree with your revert. By suggesting that you reverted to the last "stable" edit, you are suggesting the editing, was, unstable? I feel that the claims that the lede needs to be completely restructured and that there are evidently many words that are not NPOV to be perfectly valid claims, hence the templates added at the front. Three different editors have recently agreed that the article has neutrality issues, and it has been written in large parts by editors who are emotionally attached to the subject to say the least. I quite frankly don't understand the revert, as all of the content removal was explained in the edit summary.<br>Also, keep in mind I was being bold. It's going to take ''way'' too much time discussing the addition of every single citation on an article with over 500 sources ([[WP:REFBOMB]] and citation overkill, by the way). [[User:Paul Vaurie|Paul Vaurie]] ([[User talk:Paul Vaurie|talk]]) 06:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
Thank you for leaving an edit summary on your recent edit on [[Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present)]]. However, I strongly disagree with your revert. By suggesting that you reverted to the last "stable" edit, you are suggesting the editing, was, unstable? I feel that the claims that the lede needs to be completely restructured and that there are evidently many words that are not NPOV to be perfectly valid claims, hence the templates added at the front. Three different editors have recently agreed that the article has neutrality issues, and it has been written in large parts by editors who are emotionally attached to the subject to say the least. I quite frankly don't understand the revert, as all of the content removal was explained in the edit summary.<br>Also, keep in mind I was being bold. It's going to take ''way'' too much time discussing the addition of every single citation on an article with over 500 sources ([[WP:REFBOMB]] and citation overkill, by the way). [[User:Paul Vaurie|Paul Vaurie]] ([[User talk:Paul Vaurie|talk]]) 06:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
:@[[User:Paul Vaurie|Paul Vaurie]] Citations/maintenance edits are one thing and as I said in my comment, it can be restored anytime (unfortunately it was part of overall edits). And I don't see "three editors" on the talk, if you refer to this discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blockade_of_the_Republic_of_Artsakh_(2022%E2%80%93present)#Neutral_POV], I don't see you commenting further and the supposed third editor (Tanz768) isn't [[WP:GS/AA|allowed to edit in the topic area]]. Please comment on the talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Blockade_of_the_Republic_of_Artsakh_(2022%E2%80%93present)#Ethnic_cleansing] about specific things you want to edit and gain consensus ''first'', the latter is very important as there is alot of dispute in this topic area and you can be certain anything contentious is going to be challenged or discussed. Also please check archives for good measure, alot of the things may very well be discussed already and have consensus. - [[user:Kevo327|<b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3</sup><sup style="color:#0033a0">2</sup><sup style="color:#f2a800">7</sup>]] ([[User talk:Kevo327|talk]]) 06:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:59, 14 August 2023
Russian Revolution
Thank you so much for fixing the journal citation error. I was struggling for quite some time to figure out what was wrong. I appreciate your help in fixing the citation. Best regards
FictiousLibrarian (talk). 04:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Reward board entry for reference errors/ bare URLs
pinging Edward-Woodrow, i have approximately 1650 lifetime edits on CS1 error fixes (verified here), and these are only the ones i've kept track of by mentioning CS or CS1 error in the edit summary, I've also done 250 (255 to be exact) CS1 error fixing edits after your RB entry (for fairness). - Kevo327 (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Reward board
|
The Multiple Barnstar | |||||||
Two barnstars for outstanding work! (Re: Reward Board) Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 23:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC) |
August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive
Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive | |
August 2023 Backlog Drive:
| |
Other ways to participate: | |
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. |
Harts unem
Discord kam tenc ban duk unek vor yes karanam dzez het khosam? Shat hartser unem dzez tal AmanAmanAmaTurq (talk) 15:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2023
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).
- Firefangledfeathers
-
- AlisonW
- Amberrock
- Closedmouth
- Scottywong
Interface administrator changes
- The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
- Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)
- The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
- The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.
Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present)
Thank you for leaving an edit summary on your recent edit on Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present). However, I strongly disagree with your revert. By suggesting that you reverted to the last "stable" edit, you are suggesting the editing, was, unstable? I feel that the claims that the lede needs to be completely restructured and that there are evidently many words that are not NPOV to be perfectly valid claims, hence the templates added at the front. Three different editors have recently agreed that the article has neutrality issues, and it has been written in large parts by editors who are emotionally attached to the subject to say the least. I quite frankly don't understand the revert, as all of the content removal was explained in the edit summary.
Also, keep in mind I was being bold. It's going to take way too much time discussing the addition of every single citation on an article with over 500 sources (WP:REFBOMB and citation overkill, by the way). Paul Vaurie (talk) 06:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Paul Vaurie Citations/maintenance edits are one thing and as I said in my comment, it can be restored anytime (unfortunately it was part of overall edits). And I don't see "three editors" on the talk, if you refer to this discussion [1], I don't see you commenting further and the supposed third editor (Tanz768) isn't allowed to edit in the topic area. Please comment on the talk page [2] about specific things you want to edit and gain consensus first, the latter is very important as there is alot of dispute in this topic area and you can be certain anything contentious is going to be challenged or discussed. Also please check archives for good measure, alot of the things may very well be discussed already and have consensus. - Kevo327 (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)