This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IronDuke (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 26 May 2008 (→Edit war: r to Nick). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:25, 26 May 2008 by IronDuke (talk | contribs) (→Edit war: r to Nick)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Question
- Is Urban Outfitters now a women's apparel franhise? I've always been under the impression that it was a store that focused on novelty items, a la Spencer's, but now it seems like they focus exclusively on female clothing.
Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit war
I see that there's a revert war going on with the article, but no corresponding conversation at talk. Can someone please explain what the dispute is about? --Elonka 06:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- The story would be too long for the Misplaced Pages servers to host. Suffice it to say I had a visit from an old stalker. IronDuke 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I took a closer look, and the edit appeared to be in good faith. The section header, "Products alleged to be anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, and pro-terror" is pretty strong, and I didn't see that kind of language included in any of the sources that I spot-checked. Then again, I didn't check all of them. Can you please point me at which source uses the "pro-terror" descriptor? Thanks, Elonka 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- What edit appeared to be in good faith? IronDuke 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether the other editor had stalked you, to here or elsewhere, is irrelevant. The edits he was reverting were pretty weird, to say the least. This is an article about a clothing store - we don't need to stuff it with allegations and criticism from the ADL, and then headline those accusations with inflammatory titles. --Nickhh (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- First off, there's no "whether" about it. Second, it most certainly is relevant, though obviously not to you. Third, your edit has noticeably degraded the quality of the article. A bunch of random citations regarding controversies is just sloppy. If you have a different way to phrase the header, I'm all ears. IronDuke 20:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Whether the other editor had stalked you, to here or elsewhere, is irrelevant. The edits he was reverting were pretty weird, to say the least. This is an article about a clothing store - we don't need to stuff it with allegations and criticism from the ADL, and then headline those accusations with inflammatory titles. --Nickhh (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- What edit appeared to be in good faith? IronDuke 20:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I took a closer look, and the edit appeared to be in good faith. The section header, "Products alleged to be anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, and pro-terror" is pretty strong, and I didn't see that kind of language included in any of the sources that I spot-checked. Then again, I didn't check all of them. Can you please point me at which source uses the "pro-terror" descriptor? Thanks, Elonka 18:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)