Jump to content

Talk:War in Donbas: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 45: Line 45:


:::I apologize to Anonymous user. I tried to be clear and honest, but I could have chosen a better way to express myself. Not much can be done with that sort of general and personal opinions, and the way in which they were expressed (with a complete rejection of the work of others as an ''"unbalanced (neo-con type) attack"'' and something ''"from the US State Department"'') is not exactly constructive, but I will try again: "Dear Anonymous user. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Could you please provide a couple of examples from the article and explain why you think they contain POV-pushing and one-sidedness?". Best regards. /[[User:EriFr|EriFr]] ([[User talk:EriFr|talk]]) 09:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
:::I apologize to Anonymous user. I tried to be clear and honest, but I could have chosen a better way to express myself. Not much can be done with that sort of general and personal opinions, and the way in which they were expressed (with a complete rejection of the work of others as an ''"unbalanced (neo-con type) attack"'' and something ''"from the US State Department"'') is not exactly constructive, but I will try again: "Dear Anonymous user. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Could you please provide a couple of examples from the article and explain why you think they contain POV-pushing and one-sidedness?". Best regards. /[[User:EriFr|EriFr]] ([[User talk:EriFr|talk]]) 09:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

::::'''Russian tank incursion'''
::::“Russia had indeed sent tanks, along with other heavy weapons, to the separatists in Ukraine”.
::::''US State department''

Revision as of 20:59, 18 July 2015

Russia: the most evil nation in the world?

Just cannot believe how POV pushing and one-sided this article is - almost as if the text come from the US State Department. Can someone address this unbalanced (neo-con type) attack on Russian? --89.243.216.201 (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just one piece of advice, if you want someone to care about this opinion, I suggest that you provide a couple of examples from the article and argues for why they contain POV-pushing and one-sidedness. Do not forget that you need reliable sources for your statements. Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now why does under-tone of that "piece of advice" seem less-than-friendly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.107.130 (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to speculate, please tell me if you come to any conclusion. /EriFr (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And,on the "matter of polite and effective discourse",folks are free speculate why Wikipedia house rules do not seem to apply to the comments of certain editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.246.159 (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize to Anonymous user. I tried to be clear and honest, but I could have chosen a better way to express myself. Not much can be done with that sort of general and personal opinions, and the way in which they were expressed (with a complete rejection of the work of others as an "unbalanced (neo-con type) attack" and something "from the US State Department") is not exactly constructive, but I will try again: "Dear Anonymous user. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Could you please provide a couple of examples from the article and explain why you think they contain POV-pushing and one-sidedness?". Best regards. /EriFr (talk) 09:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Russian tank incursion
“Russia had indeed sent tanks, along with other heavy weapons, to the separatists in Ukraine”.
US State department