Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:01, 12 March 2015

		The Barnstar of David
		For taking the POV out of Women of the Wall, I award you this barnstar. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Ireland–Israel relations

Something controversial as this addition needs to be sourced. The citations and references should be added on editing the article. Murry1975 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

A blog, or an opinion peice and one sided websites tend not ot be good references. Murry1975 (talk) 08:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Your addition to Foreign relations of Israel has been reverted three times now. Please do not add it again without discussion on the talk page. Could you please also explain why these events are so significant that they merit appearing in a summary of Irish - Israel relations? Have they seriously impacted on them? Have they brought about an official change in relations? Or are they just a trivial fuss regarding Israel diplomatic staff, of little consequence to Ireland? Thanks. --Escape Orbit 20:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

David Rotem

Hello VanEman. As you may have seen, I have removed the large controversy section you added to the David Rotem page again. After I removed it the first time, I started a discussion on the article talk page, which unfortunately you missed or ignored.

As I noted in the edit summaries and on the talk page, there are two main concerns - firstly that the section is WP:UNDUE because of its size comparative to the rest of the article, and secondly that he might not have actually said what it is claimed he said (an independent witness has stated that he did not say the words that have caused the controversy). But anyway, as per the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle, please discuss on the talk page rather than continue reverting the material back into the article.

Also, please be a bit more careful when reverting other editors – in this revert (apparently a blind one) you also removed the text that was added to the political career section and added back a load of whitespace. Cheers, Number 57 09:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Michal Har'el has been accepted

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions alert

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33--Bbb23 (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Israel–Sweden relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lehi (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Barry Freundel

The paragraph you added on February 19 is referenced to the wrong URL, and was therefore deleted.

Zoululia---Actually, the Washington Post dramatically modified its original article and so I have referenced a web-site that saves the cached original version, which stated the following: "The case also spotlighted fissures within modern Orthodoxy about topics including the role of women in places such as the mikvah — which is used regularly by observant women but governed largely by men — and the lack of accountability in a non-hierarchical faith. It also spurred debate about the treatment of converts in Judaism, some of whom spoke out after his arrest about their outsider status — very different from evangelistic faiths such as Islam and Christianity that are much more welcoming of converts." Vaneman

VanEman: One has to presume that any previous version of the article was changed by the newspaper due to an inaccuracy, misrepresentation, unsubstantiated generalization, or just a change of heart by the authors. The article is the intellectual property of its authors and they control its contents. Their decision to change its contents becomes final, and the previous version, therefore, ceases to be a matter of record the moment it is re-edited. It ceases to be a valid reference the moment it is removed from the original article on the web site that you link to. You'll have to find another article from a reputable source that makes a similar point. Zozoulia

Zozoulia---Hardly. Newspapers often remove stuff their paying readers don't like, that the night editor doesn't like or they want to shorten it or whatever. Many reasons are possible. If the Washington Post had removed the content because it was an error, it owes the public a notice that says, "error," which most reputable newspapers do when they have made a factual error. I gather The Washington Post's rewrite of the story is why Misplaced Pages want us to cite WHEN exactly the site was accessed. Vaneman

Vaneman: The Washington Post may indeed owe its readers an explanation but you still can't cite a newspaper assertion that was removed from an article by its authors and no longer appears on its web cite. Look for another article. There are plenty out there.

See, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flaws

Zozoulia

Zozoulia, if they said it, and they didn't withdraw it for being mistaken and in error,you can cite it. Vaneman

Vaneman: Sorry, you're wrong and in violation of Misplaced Pages policy. I submitted this matter to Misplaced Pages editors in the Tearoom and here's their clear response:

Removed statements are sometimes "retractions" and should never be used for claims. The reason most are removed is that they were inaccurate in the first place, a few are removed due to complaints of defamation. Newspapers are "reliable sources" because they will remove inaccuracies. Collect (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Zozoulia.

Hello again. Mention of Freundel's resignation was already made in the "Aftermath" section, where it correctly belongs chronologically, since it happened after his guilty plea. {{subst:signed|Zozoulia}} {{time}} (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Dropping a line

I'm just gonna drop you a line to calm down about this Australia thing. You wrote extensively about it in a "Legal issues" section. It is not lead material.

Even if you disagree, please remember WP:BRD, saying that if you see other editors, especially experienced ones, opposing, you should really seek consensus first, by discussing the issue on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edit summary "No protection for pedophiles and those who protect them" suggests your emotional involvement. Please calm down and do not engage in an WP:EDITWAR, which may compromise your editing privileges on Misplaced Pages. Debresser (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I appreciated your additions to the article and the fact that you took my advice and came to the "talking table"/talkpage. We'll continue the discussion there, hopefully with other editors giving their opinions as well. Debresser (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I see you're back at the Chabad article. Thank you very much for clarifying those issues I had mark with the "clarify" tag. That was very helpful. Adding sources was too.

I would like to point out that accusing people of having a POV, like you did in this edit summary, is one of the best ways to antagonize your fellow editors. Especially since you have no proof for that accusation, which basically means you violated WP:NPA.

Afterwards you restored the sentence "The Royal Commission has been investigating the way rabbis handled sexual abuse cases inside two Chabad institutions", which I had repeatedly removed before. The reason I removed it, is because it partly duplicates the first sentence of the paragraph. I now rewrote the whole thing in a way that removed the double text, but I'd really appreciate it if you gave a little more consideration to what other editors do, and why. You may find they actually strive to make the article better, just like you. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop dumping Negative POV on Chabad articles

Stop your constant dumping of undue weight of negative material on Chabad articles. Please edit articles that you could use NPOV. Thanks. Caseeart (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning

I recommend you to stop adding material to the already overly large section on the Chabad article. I am quite fed up with your edit warring. As you can see, there is a section on the talkpage with a proposal to remove even the existing section. Adding new material to it, goes against the grain of that talkpage discussion. In addition, those sentences contain are really overly detailed information. There is not argument like "this has to be here till it is transported to another article": if it shouldn't be here, then it shouldn't be here. Debresser (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)