| Revision as of 06:58, 6 May 2015 editOccultZone (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers224,089 edits →May 2015: add← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:46, 6 May 2015 edit undoPlot Spoiler (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,551 edits unnecessary, shorteningNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| == May 2015 == | == May 2015 == | ||
| ⚫ | There was no reason to keep that page move request opened. I have reverted your , the closure by {{U|Kingsindian}} was indeed proper. ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | ||
| {{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' | |||
| '''Please carefully read this information:''' | |||
| The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding the ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ]. | |||
| Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. | |||
| }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> ] <small>(] • ] • ])</small> 06:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
Revision as of 15:46, 6 May 2015
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Too lazy I guess.
It's independently verifiable by the link Derfner gives. Of course, the lazy never check round.Nishidani (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless, don't link to +972. That simple. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- True. You were also right about POV on stone throwing, spent a little time cutting back some of it, it needs a great deal more attention, but there are so many wildly POV articles that do. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Some falafel for you!
|
Thanks for all you do.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC) |
Toni Morrison
I see that you have just reverted my change. Your edit was an improvement; at least the citation after your fix was not a tweet of a drastically edited original interview. If you disagree with my edit, please discuss on the talk page; don't try to have a discussion via edit summaries. In the mean time, please revert your reversion. - Neonorange (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Death to America
hi. you have reverted my edit in Death to America.can you tell me why ? i just concidered, i am expressing both side of the the issue.to balance the article. i just added a possible reason for.Yasin2015 (talk) 05:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Death to America and your repeat deletion
You have twice deleted the following material from Death to America "some believe,This slogan was born due to inappropriate behavior and proceedings of U.S. administration toward Iran which result in Iranian's hatred of America." along with the following cite <ref>{{cite web|title=SEVEN THINGS YOU DIDN’T KNOW THE U.S. AND ITS ALLIES DID TO IRAN|url=https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/04/07/10-things-didnt-know-weve-done-iran/|website=firstlook|publisher=Firstlook|accessdate=13 April 2015}}</ref>. I disagree with your deletion. This is a content dispute, and should be discussed on the article talk page. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative project. The procedure when there is disagreement on content is to discuss, not repeatedly add or delete information that you may disagree with. An edit summary is not the way to come to a resolution. Please revert yourself, and make a case for the deletion on the article talk page. The material added by Yasin2015 is WP:NPOV; and brings some balance to the article. The source may not be of the highest quality, but there are certainly a large number of better sources available that make the same point.— Neonorange (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Talk:2014 East Harlem apartment buildings explosion
Another move discussion has been set up. Join in to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
May 2015
There was no reason to keep that page move request opened. I have reverted your edit, the closure by Kingsindian was indeed proper. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)