| Revision as of 07:56, 17 July 2019 view sourceOnceinawhile (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers49,722 edits →IP multi article consensus: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:06, 18 July 2019 view source Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,200 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Nableezy/Archive 41) (botNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| == Edit notices == | |||
| The trouble with the "template-editor" right is that they'll be afraid you might edit templates. However "page-mover" is also enough to add editnotices and based on a sample of one there is a good chance you will get it if you apply at ]. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :You sure? I thought it was just template-editor and admins. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :nvm, I see that it is. Will request that permission now. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 18:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :: It was changed sometime in the past month or two, so your memory is not wrong. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Page mover granted == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello, Nableezy. Your account has been <span class="plainlinks"></span> the "{{mono|extendedmover}}" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and ]. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a ], move ] when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages. | |||
| Please take a moment to review ] for more information on this user right, especially ]. Please remember to follow ] and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when <code>suppressredirect</code> is used. This can be done using ]. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to ]. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status ]. | |||
| Useful links: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ], for article renaming requests awaiting action. | |||
| If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! <!-- Template:Page mover granted -->] (]) 19:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you very much, <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 19:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Status of the Golan Heights == | == Status of the Golan Heights == | ||
Revision as of 04:06, 18 July 2019
Template:Archive box collapsible
Status of the Golan Heights
Your latest edit to Status of the Golan Heights leaves the phrases "captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War" and "territory to be Syrian held under Israeli military occupation" each used twice in the same, very short lead. Please self-revert. M . M 21:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- No, it gives the current status and when saying the US has changed its views gives that the international community continues to consider it occupied. Anyway, if youd like to challenge an edit made on an article the place to do that is the article's talk page. Where youll see that this very discussion has already, briefly, took place. nableezy - 21:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Can you at least remove one of the "captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War" lines? It's used twice in the same paragraph, very repetitive & annoying. Thank you. M . M 21:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Fine. nableezy - 21:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Can you at least remove one of the "captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War" lines? It's used twice in the same paragraph, very repetitive & annoying. Thank you. M . M 21:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
IP multi article consensus
Following your edit I just added this: wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Multi-article_consensus. Despite being a relatively experienced editor I have struggled to find these in the past, so I imagine it’s even more difficult to find for new editors. Are there any other similar areas of multi-article consensus you can think of that’s worth adding to the list? Onceinawhile (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)