User talk:Puttyschool: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:47, 5 October 2008 view sourceJayjg (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →Blocked for 72 hours ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:49, 5 October 2008 view source East718 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users26,172 edits →Blocked for 72 hours: rNext edit →
Line 65:		Line 65:

	<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:72 hours\|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours'''\|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:the reasons given at ]\|'''the reasons given at ]'''\|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock\|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:\|]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)		<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:72 hours\|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours'''\|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:the reasons given at ]\|'''the reasons given at ]'''\|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock\|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:\|]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
	{{unblock\|I think I apologized for the reference as I don’t know it is a anti-semantic site, I believed it is a Jews site from its name}}		{{unblock reviewed\|1=I think I apologized for the reference as I don’t know it is a anti-semantic site, I believed it is a Jews site from its name\|decline=It's straining my credulity to think that you wouldn't spot what truly is the canonical example of an anti-Semitic website for what it is. And the "Jew" York Times? I already own some waterfront property in Brooklyn, no thanks. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">] // ] // ] // 05:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)</small>}}
	::Yes, when you ] people believed you, but it's wearing thin. Jew Watch is an obviously antisemitic site, and someone who cannot see that, but at the same time insists the ] is not a reliable source, and that pretty much every source he disagrees with is baised, and often controlled by AIPAC or the "Israel lobby", needs to take some time off to review ] and ] very carefully. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)		::Yes, when you ] people believed you, but it's wearing thin. Jew Watch is an obviously antisemitic site, and someone who cannot see that, but at the same time insists the ] is not a reliable source, and that pretty much every source he disagrees with is baised, and often controlled by AIPAC or the "Israel lobby", needs to take some time off to review ] and ] very carefully. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
			:Also, please familiarize yourself with the information outlined ]. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">] // ] // ] // 05:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 05:49, 5 October 2008

Welecome to my talk page

Feel free to talk to me on my talk page. I don't bite.

My Notebook(Personal use)

Archives

2008

Add your comments

good page :) 5768altalena (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ask Questions

Add Notes

ANI thread

Hello, Puttyschool. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. lifebaka++ 21:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Again

Putty, please stop taking out well-cited material from the JIDF piece again. This is not my opinion vs. your opinion about Jihad. This is about taking information from a RS and placing it into an article. We cannot pick and choose based upon our opinions. Please self-revert your edit, as I do not wish to get into any further "edit wars" with you. Again, all I have done is place well-cited material from a reliable source into the article, as per Maliz's request. The fact that you disagree with the information from the RS is irrelevant to the project. WP is not about personal POV's, but rather, accurately placing information from RS. You might personally disagree with the material, but it is not your place to take out well-cited information from reliable sources just because you disagree with it.--Einsteindonut (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ED this is not my point of view, if some word are misused by few Medias, this does not mean Misplaced Pages must do as well, now for example the BBC never use such words, soPlease Readme first And remember your long discussions about (K-1)Pedia, which you claimed about it as anti-semantic, and after the long discussions done by many editors, I found it is more pro(with)-semantic than anti-semantic, but I also respected Jews point of view, I think at least you must respect Muslims point of view « PuTTY 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Putty, I'm not sure I understand a lot of what you're trying to say about my previous claims. However, "Islamic jihadist propaganda" and "Islamic terrorist" organizations are facts of life and have nothing to do with respecting Muslim's point of view. I can find you plenty of Muslims who are not offended by these terms and who use them and plenty of scholarly material and reliable sources which use them too. Again, you merely trying to extract key points and information in which you don't like or agree with personally, which is wrong. --Einsteindonut (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

ED, you key points are the “propaganda” and “terrorist organizations” and I left them, to make you understand more, let us imaging that some groups described the massacres happened in 1948 as a Judaism massacres, using a single point of view, as described by some sources at that time, then claimed that they are fair and respecting all Jews point of views as they have a cited source, are they are actually so? « PuTTY 22:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

JIDF

Hello. Please don't delete portions of a direct quotation from a reliable source. Keep in mind that "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth" (see WP:V). — ] (] · ]) 02:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Malik, this is not a sufficient reason for neglecting others point of view « PuTTY 22:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can find other points of view concerning the JIDF, coming from reliable sources, by all means bring them to the article. — ] (] · ]) 00:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I know it isn't quite working out ...yet

~ Troy (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

...but I hope it works out soon. ~ Troy (talk) 03:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Egypt

I have semi-protected the article for three days. Hope that helps. Useight (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing

This is just a thought of mine offered in good faith. If I were in your position I would just quietly get along with my editing rather than go admin shopping. Blocks are not vindictive, they are protective. Your lobbying to extend the block is unseemly at best and is only serving to attract attention to your own edits in that last debate which, you'll have to admit, weren't all exactly sterling examples of civility. The other editor got a three day block, be satisfied with it and hope he learns his lesson. Please take my advice in the spirit of good faith in which it is offered. Be well. —Ashanda (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not understood too much, but my POV if anyone can post such hateful, vile comment and as he/she wrote was inspecting only one week, and finally got 3 days then this is a green light for anyone to post such comments about any country and this will turn Misplaced Pages to another facebook « PuTTY 12:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't panic about Misplaced Pages turning into Facebook, that simply isn't going to happen. However kicking a man when he's down does very little to elevate the kicker's esteem in other people's eyes, quite the opposite in fact. That's all I'm going to say on the subject, I won't debate it further. Happy editing. —Ashanda (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fun JIDF stuff

Just so you know, you've been mentioned in a posting at this website. (permanent link) Let me know if you experience any problems regarding this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don’t care, this is not the first time to dedicate the site for me or any other editor, user troublesome always do this after each block, most probably he/she is the one who runs this site, the site was dedicated for me for three time before. it is not a rated site, and I don’t believe they have a real case to support so they are more interested with trivialities « PuTTY 00:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for the reasons given at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User troublesome again and again (Einsteindonut). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Jayjg 05:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Puttyschool (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I apologized for the reference as I don’t know it is a anti-semantic site, I believed it is a Jews site from its name

Decline reason:

It's straining my credulity to think that you wouldn't spot what truly is the canonical example of an anti-Semitic website for what it is. And the "Jew" York Times? I already own some waterfront property in Brooklyn, no thanks. east718 // talk // email // 05:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yes, when you feigned innocence about this kind of thing last month people believed you, but it's wearing thin. Jew Watch is an obviously antisemitic site, and someone who cannot see that, but at the same time insists the Canadian Jewish News is not a reliable source, and that pretty much every source he disagrees with is baised, and often controlled by AIPAC or the "Israel lobby", needs to take some time off to review WP:V and WP:NPOV very carefully. Jayjg 05:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, please familiarize yourself with the information outlined here. east718 // talk // email // 05:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:47, 5 October 2008 view sourceJayjg (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators134,922 edits →Blocked for 72 hours ← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:49, 5 October 2008 view source East718 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users26,172 edits →Blocked for 72 hours: rNext edit →
Line 65:		Line 65:

	<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:72 hours\|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours'''\|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:the reasons given at ]\|'''the reasons given at ]'''\|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock\|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:\|]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)		<div class="user-block"> ] {{#if:72 hours\|You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours'''\|You have been '''temporarily ]''' from editing}} in accordance with ] for {{#if:the reasons given at ]\|'''the reasons given at ]'''\|]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --><nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock\|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki><!-- Do not include the "nowiki" tags. --> below, but you should read our ] first. {{#if:\|]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 --> ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
	{{unblock\|I think I apologized for the reference as I don’t know it is a anti-semantic site, I believed it is a Jews site from its name}}		{{unblock reviewed\|1=I think I apologized for the reference as I don’t know it is a anti-semantic site, I believed it is a Jews site from its name\|decline=It's straining my credulity to think that you wouldn't spot what truly is the canonical example of an anti-Semitic website for what it is. And the "Jew" York Times? I already own some waterfront property in Brooklyn, no thanks. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">] // ] // ] // 05:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)</small>}}
	::Yes, when you ] people believed you, but it's wearing thin. Jew Watch is an obviously antisemitic site, and someone who cannot see that, but at the same time insists the ] is not a reliable source, and that pretty much every source he disagrees with is baised, and often controlled by AIPAC or the "Israel lobby", needs to take some time off to review ] and ] very carefully. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)		::Yes, when you ] people believed you, but it's wearing thin. Jew Watch is an obviously antisemitic site, and someone who cannot see that, but at the same time insists the ] is not a reliable source, and that pretty much every source he disagrees with is baised, and often controlled by AIPAC or the "Israel lobby", needs to take some time off to review ] and ] very carefully. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 05:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
			:Also, please familiarize yourself with the information outlined ]. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap">] // ] // ] // 05:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)</small>