User page | Talk page | Contributions | Articles | Shiny things | WikiProjects |
---|
![]() Search the Archives |
---|
Contents
Nationality vs Citizenship
There is a difference Malik - Wiki is a good source for this difference and ensuring that one part of an article reference a different part is a normal concept - provided of course that the 1st part is accurate - one could always remove the supporting part 1st to get to the offending part 2nd
sorry to upset you Shabazz - source of Jus sanguinis nationalism is in the body of text in article - change the article remove the source if you well - then replace Nationalism w/ Citizenship if you must be a bully, but at least be correct
Having Jewish parents and Law of Return is not controversial - or at least is it factual = wishful thinking by some not withstanding Redtobelieve (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Redtobelieve, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies concerning Verifiability and Biographies of living persons. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source; see WP:CIRCULAR (which is part of our Verifiability policy). Unless you cite reliable sources to support your changes, they will be reverted. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Formal mediation has been requested
Are you serious?
Last time it was leave the stuff out per BRD and anyone putting it back in is edit warring, and now you restore edits I removed per BRD? Kindly reconsider your last revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I think it's inappropriate to undo nine edits with a single edit, whose summary says "there might have been some ok edits in there, it was impossible to separate." It's not impossible to separate—there were nine separate edits.
- Feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page. Or not. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- While you might think it's inappropriate, two other editors, one of whom is an admin, thought it was perfectly appropriate when Qualitatis took it to ANI.
- It was indeed impossible to revert the just the obviously problematic edits. I tried. Will you undo your last revert? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Assuming removing or reverting is justified in the first place, it's your job to do that to just the bits which "need" it. If the one-click reversion machinery won't do that for you because of intervening edits or whathaveyou, that doesn't entitle you to throw the baby out with the bathwater -- you'll have to do it manually. EEng 23:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you haven't followed the events. At first Q made 9 edits, which I reverted, with the edit summary MS is referring to above. Then another user came in and restored the marginally ok edits (none of them were great, but I admit I may not have removed them if they stood alone). Then Q came back and restored the rest, which I removed, which MS reverted. I did not revert any legitimate material, as far as I'm concerned. So Q edit warred and MS is now edit warring on his behalf. I hope this clarifies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am responding to your statement that, "It was indeed impossible to revert the just the obviously problematic edits. I tried." My point is you'll have to try harder to revert just the obviously problematic edits. EEng 23:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- As I explained above, that point is moot. Those unproblematic edits are already in the article and are not what MS reverted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am responding to your statement that, "It was indeed impossible to revert the just the obviously problematic edits. I tried." My point is you'll have to try harder to revert just the obviously problematic edits. EEng 23:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think you haven't followed the events. At first Q made 9 edits, which I reverted, with the edit summary MS is referring to above. Then another user came in and restored the marginally ok edits (none of them were great, but I admit I may not have removed them if they stood alone). Then Q came back and restored the rest, which I removed, which MS reverted. I did not revert any legitimate material, as far as I'm concerned. So Q edit warred and MS is now edit warring on his behalf. I hope this clarifies. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Assuming removing or reverting is justified in the first place, it's your job to do that to just the bits which "need" it. If the one-click reversion machinery won't do that for you because of intervening edits or whathaveyou, that doesn't entitle you to throw the baby out with the bathwater -- you'll have to do it manually. EEng 23:35, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
I've self-reverted. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- What a dishonest and hypocritical reaction of No More Mr Nice Guy. The next edits by Sepsis II had nothing to do with the wholesale revert and were actually a not so smart covering of the revert, though his edits in itself were done in good faith. If No More Mr Nice Guy does not like to invest time into editing and just wants easy hasbara warring, he should stop at all. ANI may technically regard 9 subsequent edits one bold edit, but this denies that it were 9 completely independent edits. I can defend every single one. --Qualitatis (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
Hmm
Sad but true. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 March 2016
- Interview: WMF interim executive director Katherine Maher says the org is at an "interesting moment of change"
- News and notes: Lila Tretikov a Young Global Leader; Wikipediocracy blog post sparks indefinite blocks
- In the media: Angolan file sharers cause trouble for Wikipedia Zero; the 3D printer edit war; a culture based on change and turmoil
- Editorial: "God damn it, you've got to be kind."
- Traffic report: Be weary on the Ides of March
- Featured content: Watch out! A slave trader, a live mascot, and a crested serpent await!
- Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel article 3 case amended
- Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #120—the status of Wikimania 2016