User talk:Philipnelson99/Archives/2022/December
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
UNHRC
If you look at the summary under bias, that is clear evidence of bias. The recent discussion seems settled. Selfstudier has a history of reverting any discussion on Israel. so I reverted it back to my post.
I will put it back unless you give me a reason not to. You should have discussed it with me first.98.186.29.6 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- It would be best to discuss it on the talk page of the article at hand before you make the change and also to be aware of WP:BIAS and WP:CONSENSUS Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
I did and only one person disagreed. I will change back. Please do not revert as you were not in the discussion.98.186.29.6 (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's fine with me, but remember like all editors, you are subject to WP:3RR. I checked the talk page and it doesn't look like there was a consensus built. You should undo your own edit and wait until there have been more comments. You can always go to WP:DRN or seek a third opinion. Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Kristen Anderson-Lopez
I did not remove ANYTHING from the Anderson-Lopez article. I merely resected an overly long paragraph. Please do not make unfounded assertions or false allegations on my talk page. 107.122.161.8 (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Style
There really is no point in the four letter word even being in the article. Also you appear to think that each article must say stated a certain number of times. That's not right. There is no formula.Infactinteresting (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Infactinteresting It is not the job of Wikipedia to censor quotes. You censored a word in the quote that you edited. There's no need to censor quotes as long as the content remains encyclopedic. I suggest you read through Wikipedia:CENSOR if you want more detailed info. And I'm not sure what you mean about saying the word stated, but I assure you, I have no quarrel with the word stated.
- Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Editing quotations is fine. I would say you probably are using too many words in a quotation. As for said vs. stated or other words there is not a formula for usage. It's alright for an article to have one "stated" and another to have two mentions. I posted on the talk page about "out-dogfights" being clunky and "successfully destroy".Infactinteresting (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Infactinteresting I think you're mistaken, I reverted your edit because you censored a quote here: [1] . This is what I reverted. I have no idea what else you are referring to. Anyway, your censorship of the quote wasn't necessary, I apologize for issuing you a warning and I will remove it from your talk page, but censorship isn't necessary in an encyclopedia. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- There is no point in having the four letter word in the article. It didn't need to ever be included.Infactinteresting (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Infactinteresting I think you're mistaken, I reverted your edit because you censored a quote here: [1] . This is what I reverted. I have no idea what else you are referring to. Anyway, your censorship of the quote wasn't necessary, I apologize for issuing you a warning and I will remove it from your talk page, but censorship isn't necessary in an encyclopedia. Philipnelson99 (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Editing quotations is fine. I would say you probably are using too many words in a quotation. As for said vs. stated or other words there is not a formula for usage. It's alright for an article to have one "stated" and another to have two mentions. I posted on the talk page about "out-dogfights" being clunky and "successfully destroy".Infactinteresting (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)