Conflict with Zero0000
I just wanted to inform you that I left a comment on the WP:AN/I forum. I think you made a wrong judgement about Zero0000. He is certainly one of the editors with the highest wiseness and respect both of rules and other contributors in the wikipedian arena. And he is with no doubt the most knowledgeable on the Mandatory period.
- Hi Pluto2012, sorry it took me so get back to you, I had been occupied on this holiday weekend, and now buried in work, but I'll squeeze sometime for this. Concerning Zero, like I said on the AN/I board he was the straw that broke the camel back. He is not the person with whose actions I was most concerned with, but his revert enabled them. Also if he thought that revert was necessary considering the coverage of that section as a whole and that paragraph in particular, I have to seriously question his knowledge and or objectivity.--PLNR (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- If you are concerned why on the topic of UN plan background during the mandate period, in paragraph which covers one of the Commissions -- that according to WP:RS is most notable for being the first to state that the mandate had become unworkable and suggested Partition for the first time. Even though its recommended framework was rejected by both parties and the technical commission that followed noted for dismissing the recommended framework as not practical within its terms of reference
- Where we barely cover the most notable issues in any way (concise summary or otherwise) -- like why the British decided the Mandate has become unworkable and how partition would address those issues, why the next commission rejected the recommendations and how the terms of reference has changed since.
- Instead a full detail account of why one of the sides rejected that plan with cherry picked recommendation and concerns -- Which doesn't add anything to how the UN plan came about, not covered in any WP:RS directly on it. Only provide full detail on the point of view of that one side --an addition which was pushed by several people who has long history on that arbitration case, whose only contribution during that time revolved one point of view, who couldn't explain why it was notable to the plan and instead of compromise or resolution attempts to find a more concise version which would be due for that pargrap\section as a whole, only insisted on full inclusion.
- Then I can offer you even more sources, especially if you don't mind to borrow a book from the library. --PLNR (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Black Sea Fleet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NPT (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.