| Revision as of 01:37, 8 April 2011 editComtesseDeMingrelie (talk | contribs)1,662 edits →A quiet advisory← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:35, 8 April 2011 edit undoMov25 (talk | contribs)71 edits →A quiet advisoryNext edit → | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| ::::: Thanks for the advice. Comtessa doesn't seem to get the point, as he takes this map change as a personal offense to his country. However, I feel like he's going to just stop discussing it, and then when I make the change, he will just revert, and the cycle will continue. Why should an accuracy of an article be held hostage by the misguided sentiment of one user? ] (]) 21:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | ::::: Thanks for the advice. Comtessa doesn't seem to get the point, as he takes this map change as a personal offense to his country. However, I feel like he's going to just stop discussing it, and then when I make the change, he will just revert, and the cycle will continue. Why should an accuracy of an article be held hostage by the misguided sentiment of one user? ] (]) 21:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :"Why should an accuracy of an article be held hostage by the misguided sentiment of one user?" is not that what I am telling you? Why should your opinion be placed above a well-sourced and supported article which has been in present state for a long time and no one had any problems? The abundance of provided sources is definitely of greater importance than whatever you have to say without providing a shred of evidence.--] 01:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | :"Why should an accuracy of an article be held hostage by the misguided sentiment of one user?" is not that what I am telling you? Why should your opinion be placed above a well-sourced and supported article which has been in present state for a long time and no one had any problems? The abundance of provided sources is definitely of greater importance than whatever you have to say without providing a shred of evidence.--] 01:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::Evidence for what?? All that has been done is a map put with Georgia in the centre, that is saying nothing about Georgia, its culture, politics, etc. It's just showing the country in a faithful and unbiased way. That's all. This actually had been a requirement for country maps to my knowledge, but wasn't followed. You really need evidence that shows that putting the focus region of map in the middle is a good practice? ] (]) 02:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==] case== | ==] case== | ||
Revision as of 02:35, 8 April 2011
Your recent edits
Please read the provisions of the latest Armenian-Azeri arbitration. Unsourced, POV statements will be quickly reverted, and you should bring up any edit in these types of articles that seems divisive or that you think others might disagree with on talk pages before making them. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is a well established fact that Nagorno Karabakh is a de facto independent state, the article fails to mention this. Mov25 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- It mentions it literally one paragraph later. --Golbez (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hah, partly because you added that. Fair enough. However, you shouldn't mention its borders with zero qualification in the intro graf, especially since that's dealt with in further detail in the second graf, and since it's not reflected in the map. --Golbez (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- It mentions it literally one paragraph later. --Golbez (talk) 16:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
A quiet advisory
Please read Bold, Revert, Discuss. It basically says, be bold - edit away. However, if someone reverts you, then it is time for you to discuss. Not to revert further, as that only leads to edit wars. --Golbez (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- What if it the opposing member refuses to discuss?? Mov25 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then you go to further levels of dispute resolution. Edit warring is never a viable option. --Golbez (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- All right I reverted my recent edit, but if I don't get cooperation from the other side, I will edit the map. Mov25 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Good advice from a vetern administrator above. I'm a very basic editor, but I've noticed over the years how proficiently veteran administators like Chipmunkdavis handle problem editors....and he's very good with geography as well (definition of continents, etc.) So don't let that often-warned, banned 3-month WP editor (Comtessa something) get to you; if pattern follows, he'll soon realize that his personal attacks and bullying won't get him far, and he'll come back as a sock puppet once or twice, then disappear.
- Agreed on your comments on the Georgia and Azerbaijan maps. Both maps look good, show consistency in style which any encylopedia (even WP) should have, are an improvement in communicating the location of the country (the whole purpose), and neutral (country near the center)....and oriented to north properly! Well done. You'll see my comments on the Georgia discussion page on the map (I'm a cartographer/geographer)DLinth (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice. Comtessa doesn't seem to get the point, as he takes this map change as a personal offense to his country. However, I feel like he's going to just stop discussing it, and then when I make the change, he will just revert, and the cycle will continue. Why should an accuracy of an article be held hostage by the misguided sentiment of one user? Mov25 (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Why should an accuracy of an article be held hostage by the misguided sentiment of one user?" is not that what I am telling you? Why should your opinion be placed above a well-sourced and supported article which has been in present state for a long time and no one had any problems? The abundance of provided sources is definitely of greater importance than whatever you have to say without providing a shred of evidence.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 01:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Evidence for what?? All that has been done is a map put with Georgia in the centre, that is saying nothing about Georgia, its culture, politics, etc. It's just showing the country in a faithful and unbiased way. That's all. This actually had been a requirement for country maps to my knowledge, but wasn't followed. You really need evidence that shows that putting the focus region of map in the middle is a good practice? Mov25 (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
|
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Izzedine#08_April_2011 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 01:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)