Talk:Lev Tolstoy (ship)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lev Tolstoy (ship). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712002105/http://www.riverships.ru/english/types/q056_specs.shtml to http://www.riverships.ru/english/types/q056_specs.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712002105/http://www.riverships.ru/english/types/q056_specs.shtml to http://www.riverships.ru/english/types/q056_specs.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:12, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war
, I came here because of the 3RV warning on Rathan's talk page prepared to block one or both of you for edit warring. It seems to me that Rathan's recent edits have largely removed the promo tone that was Mean as custard's concern, so I'll hold off for now, since hopefully the was has ended. If there are still content issues, discuss them here. I won't hesitate to block if the war restarts, especially if it's through the addition of NPOV material Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It still seems a little promotional but I don't have a serious problem with it now. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Mean as custard, yes, and the references are very weak, the two used in "Description" are a review site and a tourist info site, neither exactly WP:RS, although the ship appears to be sufficiently notable. I've removed the claim about high-quality materials since the reference is too poor for us to be able to use that opinion even if it said it. I suppose that saying Tolstoy is famous is a value judgement, but I can live with that Jimfbleak - talk to me?  13:36, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@ @ Thanks Jimfbleak for addressing the issue. Actually, I don't have any problem if someone deletes my work for a reason which makes it inappropriate. But when removing a big chunk of data, I think it's appropriate to address the issues in the talk page or at list include them in the edit note; so that other editor can know why the edit was done. When I reverted it for the first time within second custard reverted it and acted as he is engaged in an edit war. It would be appropriate to ad reason in the edit note about the concern. Whatever, later when he posted about his concern I have fixed the problems. Thank You