Revision as of 23:27, 8 September 2014 editDePiep (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users294,285 edits →1RR: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:24, 10 September 2014 edit undoDePiep (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users294,285 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
Hi. Your edits and constitute a plain breach of ], simply in the first section (the lede). I request you revert it. -] (]) 23:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | Hi. Your edits and constitute a plain breach of ], simply in the first section (the lede). I request you revert it. -] (]) 23:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. |
Revision as of 18:24, 10 September 2014
Hello SeattliteTungsten, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! I have noticed your recent contributions and apologize for the late welcome.
Here are some tips to help you along:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
- Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Follow the Misplaced Pages:Simplified Ruleset
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck! Ramallite 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- 4 tildes... thanks, I was looking for how to do this. -SeattliteTungsten 17:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Israeli West Bank barrier
Hi - please read the no original research policy page. According to the page,
Original research is a term used on Misplaced Pages to refer to material added to articles by Misplaced Pages editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Misplaced Pages's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
Creating a new chart and extrapolating data based on your own research violates this policy. Hope this helps. Ramallite 15:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have read the no original research policy page but do not believe this is original research. See more details in IWBB talk page. SeattliteTungsten 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't responded yet - I still have a few points to address but I'll get to them as soon as I can. As for the chart, I was approaching it strictly from a scientist's perspective, in which data illustrating change, introduced in such a manner, would be immediately tossed out and the presenter would be disemboweled with an aluminium toothpick. But I realize now that this is how %GDP is illustrated, so you were right about that. I also agree that if we want to present information, we should do that as neutrally as possible. I still feel the text is a thinly veiled attempt to push a POV that the barrier actually improved the economy (which in my opinion would be something to be proud of, to have a recovering economy in the face of such adversity), but unfortunately we can't really introduce an original concept like that since it would be OR and also inaccurate. I also don't understand why you deleted the most recent reference to the actual GDP (2004) and replaced it with the older 2002. More later, I'll post on the discussion page itself as soon as I can. Ramallite 04:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
StandWithUs
Thanks for your message. I'm sorry to see that your statement of respect for me on your user talk page was replaced with a condemnation of "loud-mouths" shortly after we had a conflict a number of weeks ago :) So as for ad hominem attacks, I have had enough experience with various editors (including the one in question, who insinuated that s/he thought I was "smarter than that" right on my talk page a few inches above where you left your comment) to safely declare when one's edits (and not personalities) are well-intentioned or not. Basically, when one gets on Misplaced Pages and commences to edit with the sole intention of delegitimizing or defaming the entire Palestinian people based on actions of a few, such a person clearly has an agenda in mind that I would not call "well intentioned". But then again, that's just me. Thanks again for your note. Ramallite 19:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is obviously some misunderstanding (or perhaps it's not that obvious). On the Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier page you wrote: "While well-meaning, this is not the best addition to this article". In my edit, I just disagreed with you that it was "well-meaning", that's all. So it was a response to you rather than a direct address to anyone else. Plus, my sentence was "I would hardly call adding propaganda sites like StandWithUs "well-meaning"". In other words, the act of using propaganda sites of the caliper of StandWithUs is something I do not consider well-meaning. Now, do you often go after people who you accuse of making personal attacks on other editors and confront them on their user pages? Or are you just, for whatever reason, focusing on lecturing me? If so, why just me? I'm really curious... Ramallite 06:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Active arbitration remedies - Israel/Palestine conflict
As a result of an arbitration case, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related the Arab-Israeli conflict. These sanctions are described at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and a brief summary is included below:
- Any uninvolved administrator may, at their own discretion, impose sanctions on editors working in the area of conflict who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process.
- Possible sanctions include blocks, bans and other editing restrictions.
- A one revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, editors may be blocked without warning if they breach this restriction. See here for more information.
Zero 12:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
1RR
Hi. Your edits and constitute a plain breach of WP:1RR, simply in the first section (the lede). I request you revert it. -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is 1RR breach by SeattliteTungsten. Thank you.