Talk:Sixteen killed in Marrakech, Morocco bomb blast

Note to Matisse

I undid one of your revisions, just to restore the map, but I did re-do your correction about the number of victims. I also fixed the layout so your photo has top billing. Tadpole256 (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I also restored your fix to the date formatting in the sources. Tadpole256 (talk) 13:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had to redo it, as when I looked at the article the date mess up was still there. So I did it again. And you did not replace the updated source for the "sixteen" killed which I had to redo. I was replacing the map, as it was accidentally when my account logged out, but got an edit conflict. Please do not revert without a real reason. Adding back a map is not a reason, IMO. Mattisse (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. Tadpole256 (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Note to Tadpole

I was adding the map again when I got an edit conflict. Unfortunately, you reverted my updated sources as well as fixes I had made to the article. My removal of the map was due to an accidental log out. Please in the future do not revert, as I had to redo my constructive changes. You could have just put the map back without reverting. Mattisse (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I had not realized how many changes you made at once until I looked again. I thought you had just removed the map in favor of the picture, and updated the body count, so it seemed easier to "undo" (just one click), and then type the number six. I'll be more careful next time.

As a side note, I typically try to make a lot of small edits, so that individual edits can be easily reverted, and also to help prevent major loss when my system craps the bed and accidentally logs me out.Tadpole256 (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The map was not there when I added the picture.

Also, if you make "lots of little edits" you should refrain from editing when another editor is doing so. Else edit conflicts and frustration are inevitable. Mattisse (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but you'll note, I started working on this story first, and I am still making revisions. If you'd like to take a break until I am done, it might avoid some confusion. I will be done soon, I am at work right now and intend to head home soon, so you can have at it then if you'd like. Tadpole256 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1222982 [Failed]

Revision 1222982 of this article has been reviewed by Rayboy8 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: No content in article. Comments by reviewer: You really shouldn't place an article up for review if there is no content in it. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1222982 of this article has been reviewed by Rayboy8 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: No content in article. Comments by reviewer: You really shouldn't place an article up for review if there is no content in it. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 1223574 [Passed]

Revision 1223574 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1223574 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.