User talk:Mikejm: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
m Further lesson in etiquette. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Please do not revert articles without discussing your changes with others. This is considered to be impolite and, if you continue, you may be blocked for a potential violation of the [[Wikipedia:Three revert rule|three revert rule]], which prohibits reverting any article to a previous version more than three times in any twenty-four hour period. |
|||
Thank you. {{User:Rdsmith4/Sig}} 03:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
*Mikejm, I'm wondering why you're inserting the word alleged all the way throughout the article. As I understand it, the Mossad agents actually had since discussed their role in acquiring him, and that it's well established both that Israel has nukes and that the agents were Mossad. Do you disagree? --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 03:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Please keep your edit summaries neutral. I understand that you don't like the present content of the article; the appropriate thing to do is to discuss it on the talk page. Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and Mossad's involvement in Vanunu's arrest seem pretty well documented. Stating this is not anti-Semitic, leftist, Eurocentric, reactionary, immature, typical "Old Europe", or verbulous. I'm not sure what "plurbulous" means. Note that you will be blocked under the three-revert rule as mentioned above if you continue adding your changes within 24 hours of the first revert.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 03:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
I shouldn't need to add: don't use misleading edit summaries (it isn't vandalism to rollback your edits when the points you raise are debated both here and on the talk page of the article in question, and you have not contributed to that debate, except while logged out (and if that is indeed you, then you are in violation of the 3RR)). Also, please don't edit my comments.-[[User:Gadfium|gadfium]] 08:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:29, 19 March 2005
Please do not revert articles without discussing your changes with others. This is considered to be impolite and, if you continue, you may be blocked for a potential violation of the three revert rule, which prohibits reverting any article to a previous version more than three times in any twenty-four hour period. Thank you. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 03:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Mikejm, I'm wondering why you're inserting the word alleged all the way throughout the article. As I understand it, the Mossad agents actually had since discussed their role in acquiring him, and that it's well established both that Israel has nukes and that the agents were Mossad. Do you disagree? --Improv 03:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please keep your edit summaries neutral. I understand that you don't like the present content of the article; the appropriate thing to do is to discuss it on the talk page. Israel's possession of nuclear weapons, and Mossad's involvement in Vanunu's arrest seem pretty well documented. Stating this is not anti-Semitic, leftist, Eurocentric, reactionary, immature, typical "Old Europe", or verbulous. I'm not sure what "plurbulous" means. Note that you will be blocked under the three-revert rule as mentioned above if you continue adding your changes within 24 hours of the first revert.-gadfium 03:31, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I shouldn't need to add: don't use misleading edit summaries (it isn't vandalism to rollback your edits when the points you raise are debated both here and on the talk page of the article in question, and you have not contributed to that debate, except while logged out (and if that is indeed you, then you are in violation of the 3RR)). Also, please don't edit my comments.-gadfium 08:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)