User talk:Aromenajla

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Aromenajla! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 17:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Gaza flotilla raid, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Gaza flotilla raid was changed by Aromenajla (u) (t) deleting 152425 characters on 2010-08-14T19:34:10+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at Freedom Flotilla II

In this edit, you disregarded a consensus-based formula arrived at on the Discussion page and deleted the sources that were attached to the claim. Someone else already reverted your change, but please don't do stuff like that again. The following links may also interest you:

—Biosketch (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that my edit was not done up to the best of quality but as it was about an ongoing event at that moment so I hope my fellow editors can be more understanding. I resent the use of the word 'disruptive' to describe the edit. As you can see, my edit corrected a mistake (in which an assumption was made to link a man to known terrorists, all based on an unidentified source, a source which wasn't even included as a citation in the first place), I clarified events (for example, prior to my correction, it was strongly implied that clashes and subsequent injuries occured only on Mavi Marmara in May 2010, which is false), and added new and significant informations which had been overlooked (such as the private complaint filed on the seaworthiness of one of the ships).

I removed the bit on the assessments of the raid/blockade for more reasons than one. For one, I find it resembles a discussion instead of a true assessment of the legality of the raid/blockade. Two citations were provided; one is an article about statements made in a report compiled by the UN Human Rights Chief, the other reads like an opinion piece and was penned by a criminal apellate lawyer and NY Daily News staff writer who also happens to be a political commentator. These citations are weak. The latter is littered with false statements (one is that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which is contradicted by the UN and ICRC on their very websites). Neither of them cite the Security Council or even a single UN resolution (though the former came close). Seeing as UN resolutions serve as the basis of international law, this makes the two citations 'opinions' and not "Legal assessments". This incongruity is another reason why I removed the passage. Finally, "Legal assessments of the situation range from claims the blockade is illegal, to support of the blockade's legality and Israel's right to use force, as necessary, to maintain it" is an awfully awkward way of saying "He said, she said". Fair enough if we want to mention the wide range of views on the issue but it should be clearly labelled as that. Views. Not "Legal assessments", which implied that it was assessed by legal authorities qualified to do so.

That said, 80% of the links you provided are opinions. Well done for finding the first one, it is the only one to mention an actual legally recognised document. I do have some reservations on the neutrality of the article, as it mentions pro-raid/blockade points from the San Remo manual while ignoring the facts that violate the terms of the very same manual.

Linking to this would've been more appropriate:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/560?OpenDocument

--Aromenajla (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply's convinced me your edit, though still nonconstructive, was well-intentioned, so I've renamed this section "Your edit at..." As to the difference between legal assessments and legal opinions, that's a nuance I personally wouldn't distinguish between. You may be right in insisting on a change of language to that effect, or the two terms may for all intents and purposes be equivalent. I don't know. My comment was strictly in relation to removing sources used in connection with a consensus-based formula. But hopefully, as a lesson from this, you'll endeavor to make use of article Discussion pages when making edits known to be of a charged nature. And if that turns out to be the case, then I look forward to interacting with you constructively in the future.—Biosketch (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]