| Revision as of 06:14, 25 August 2008 editKhoikhoi (talk | contribs)71,605 edits →Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:21, 26 August 2008 edit undoArzel (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,013 edits →John McCain: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| ::Before you start an RfC or anything like that, will you allow me to first suggest a compromise version? (i.e. try to mediate) As I've said to BehnamFarid, I would like to keep this a content dispute and not let it get out of hand. The purpose of mediation is not to get users to communicate, but to solve editing disputes as outlined at ]. Please give this a chance first and if it fails, then you can consider other options. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) | ::Before you start an RfC or anything like that, will you allow me to first suggest a compromise version? (i.e. try to mediate) As I've said to BehnamFarid, I would like to keep this a content dispute and not let it get out of hand. The purpose of mediation is not to get users to communicate, but to solve editing disputes as outlined at ]. Please give this a chance first and if it fails, then you can consider other options. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 06:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == John McCain == | |||
| AzureFury, | |||
| When a section is in violation of WP policies, as is the Conscription section, concensus is not needed for removal. Furthermore, I might add that you don't have concensus for inclusion even if this was not the case. The onus for inclusion is on the includer, and to this point you have not provided a valid reason why those two sections are important or don't violate existing WP policies. I would ask that you present your case on the talk page before readding the information. WP is not the place to insert your own reporting, which is what appears to be happening here. ] (]) 03:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:21, 26 August 2008
| This is AzureFury's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Oren0 (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
Misleading edit summaries
Edit summaries are designed to help other editors quickly realize what your edits are without having to look at them in detail. Writing an edit summary of "correcting spacing" when you're really adding a major edit you know to be contentious is incredibly bad form and contrary to assuming good faith and reasonable wikiquette. Please don't do this again. Oren0 (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"Reality has a strong liberal bias"...
...is actually a quote from Stephen Colbert. :) Always liked that one... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Haha, thanks, I attributed it to him. AzureFury (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- More than likely predates Colbert, but he's as good as any to attribute it to. II | (t - c) 09:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
On Unruled Paper (film)
Dear AzureFury, had you read my statements on the talk page of the above-mentioned entry before adding npov to the tag? (On this talk page I have explained the reason why I have used the word "stellar", for example.) Whatever the answer to this question, have you seen the film? I have used what you have considered as pov without the slightest reservation: in my opinion (which you should not take lightly on this matter), the film is one of the very best ever made, not only in Iran, but anywhere on the planet. If you have not seen the film, I warmly recommend you to get hold of a DVD of it and see it; then you will realise that the film is simply mesmerising - it greatly helps if you know Persian (as I have said it elsewhere, one can write a book on the subject matter of the language used in this film; it is a very pure language, making it a delight just to listen to the dialogues; this is essentially due to the dialogues being very natural and honest expressions, free from artificial terms). Kind regards, --BF 19:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
I left a long reply there to the comments about me. Thanks for letting me know, because I do not usually follow up every opinion I offer. DGG (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply
That's why I'm hoping that there can be a consensus on which statements everyone agrees need to be changed, I've suggested two changes myself on the talk page. As for the page protection, see m:The Wrong Version. Also, I would really prefer that we not discuss the specific personal attacks that were made, as I'd like us to move on, but the "ramming our planes into Iran" comment was particularly inappropriate, and I don't see how in any way it was constructive. My real question is whether you would agree to some kind of mediation or not, because the page will be protected until there is a consensus, and I'm not sure if you and BehnamFarid can achieve one by yourselves. Khoikhoi 04:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, once the page is protected, it can't be reverted until unprotection, and as I've already said, unprotection will only come once there is a consensus. And if I protected to your version, I would get complaints from the other side. The bottom line is that the whole point of page protection is that the involved users are meant to compromise, which is why I offered the idea of mediation. Are you interested in this idea? Khoikhoi 04:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Before you start an RfC or anything like that, will you allow me to first suggest a compromise version? (i.e. try to mediate) As I've said to BehnamFarid, I would like to keep this a content dispute and not let it get out of hand. The purpose of mediation is not to get users to communicate, but to solve editing disputes as outlined at WP:CON. Please give this a chance first and if it fails, then you can consider other options. Khoikhoi 06:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
John McCain
AzureFury,
When a section is in violation of WP policies, as is the Conscription section, concensus is not needed for removal. Furthermore, I might add that you don't have concensus for inclusion even if this was not the case. The onus for inclusion is on the includer, and to this point you have not provided a valid reason why those two sections are important or don't violate existing WP policies. I would ask that you present your case on the talk page before readding the information. WP is not the place to insert your own reporting, which is what appears to be happening here. Arzel (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)