User talk:Wickey-nl/Archive 4

Fatah–Hamas_conflict
Hi, concerning your edit here and here, can you be a tad more specific as to what make you feel it is distorted, leading you to removed altogether? what about alternative wording suggestion? Because it is pretty much per source..

Also I am not certain what exactly you found disrupting about this. It seemed self explanatory to me, but I split it in two parts for your benfit:, , tell me if you have any further concerns. --PLNR (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Discuss it on the articles' Talk page. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Discuss what? I am not going for a fishing expedition for comments, either can expand on what you said to substantiate your removal or I am going to revert it and wait for you to provide it on the relevant articles' Talk page.--PLNR (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading edits
Concerning my edit that your just reverted.

Your revert comes after we agreed that quote in the reference has nothing todo with where it is used, moreover its the opposite of the text it is used to reference. But you choose to put it back, through the use of named refs, replacing the standard ref template, with a selective quote which address only one instance. This edit is misleading at best and was reverted.--PLNR (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerning your edit here

Assuming that your summary is correct, you removed a source for the first part of the sentence. As for your summary that the "Statements not supported by the refs..". I wasted time reading the sources/statements, and other than some minor wording issues the text follow the sources very closely. Usually when making big changes and or removing content\sources, especially in the lead where it covers large chunk of the article. Being more forthcoming with your summary is very appreciated. Otherwise reading the section as whole, one might think that your intent was removal of sources and content you don't like, changing the lead summary drastically, as oppose to making improvements to it.--PLNR (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I asked to discuss in the article! By exception I will response here.
 * First, I taste a suspicion that I am generally editing in bad faith. The removed sources simply do not support the statement, as indicated. The MidEastWeb does not support the statement just because it is so close to the text. Sources that merely cite the Charter are fake-sources. Further, in my view every citation should be removed from the lead. --Wickey-nl (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"Pointless changes"
I take issue with your calling my edits "pointless." Wikipedia has a manual of style, and I'm merely interested in having the articles conform to that manual.

I did not realize that the numbering was disturbed by using the automated format. You were surely justified in reversing that portion of my edit. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  15:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I apologize for that remark, although I find most changes non-sense. I don't want to row someone for following the rules, though. --Wickey-nl (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Happy editing! -- Jprg1966  (talk)  17:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories
You have made numerous edits to the article Water supply and sanitation in the Palestinian territories over the last few days. I have tried to find out what has been changed, removed or added, but found it hard to do so due to the large number and variety of edits. I also noticed that you did not write anything in the "Edit Summary" box open. If you do further edits to the article, could you please briefly describe what changes you have made in the "Edit Summary" box? In my experience, this is good practice on Wikipedia and it helps other users to assess the changes to articles in a transparent way.--Mschiffler (talk) 09:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your complaint, as I try to use the "Edit Summary" box as good as possible. I understand that so many changes at once make it difficult, but if you want to control all edits, you will have to study them one by one. If the edits would have come over a longer period, it had cost you at least the same amount of time.


 * The article had a very bad structure and the use of statistics is tricky by nature, so use of figures remain difficult. I just found the water use for Gaza.


 * I considered fewer edits at once, but this is not possible with major restructuring, and I would loose the overview. You may ask specific details on the talkpage. --Wickey-nl (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * BTW, I consider the reference to the edited section in combination with the edits often sufficient. Many edits are self-explaining. --Wickey-nl (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for using the edit summary field on your latest edits. This makes it easier for other users to establish that your edits are done in good faith. Thank you for taking the time to improve the article, by the way.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

1rr at Jerusalem
assuming good faith that you forgot about the 1rr restriction I'll you know that you should self revert. thanks.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and at Beit El.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 17:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You have more than 50,000 edits? You may study the rules first. --Wickey-nl (talk) 09:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

semi-protected
I semi-protected this page and your user page. Feel free to ask if you want the protection removed. Zerotalk 13:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

For interest
Hi, regarding "Superfluous tags within one citation", for interest, there are a couple of reasons why I often tend to cite every sentence in ARBPIA. For me, it helps to keep track of exactly where things have come from while the section is being developed, especially when there are multiple sources at play and the content is in a state of flux. Also, when an article is likely to be targeted by sockpuppets, editors who have clearly decided that they do not need to follow the rules, the content tends shredded over time as they tamper with it, sometimes to the extent that it is no longer possible to tell where anything comes from.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand. In this case, the text was fairly coherent and unlikely to be splitted, but no problem. Cheers, --Wickey-nl (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)