Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sepsis II (talk | contribs) at 02:31, 18 November 2012 (→November 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, Sepsis II, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Misplaced Pages

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

If you want your edits to stick it would be a good idea to read through some of the links above. Importantly always provide a reference for anything you add that may be subject to challenge. Also if editing in controversial subjects such as the Israel/Palestine conflict it might be worthwhile to make one edit at a time, then non-controversial edits will not be undone, while more controversial ones can be discussed further on the talk page. Another important thing to remember is not to edit war: In topics related to the Israel/Palestine conflict, you are only allowed to make one revert per article in 24 hours after that you should go to the article's talk page. Unfortunately even if you have good intentions, if you do not stick to the rules you will find that you won't be editing in the topic area for very long. Dlv999 (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Operation Pillar of Cloud

Since this article is about the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is under a WP:1RR restriction. See the {{ARBPIA}} template on the talk page. Please be aware that you have made two edits on 16 November that removed material from the article. Some people might view this as two reverts in 24 hours. Caution will be appreciated, especially since you are a brand new editor who is already removing warning messages from your talk page. Your edits on I-P articles may cause people to quickly stereotype you as a warrior for a cause if you are not careful. If you think you see an opportunity to correct bias you will need to work in a very patient manner and get consensus for your changes. The page at WP:BATTLE explains why obvious militancy is not favored here, and can even lead to sanctions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The neutral point of view article states that neutrality is nonnegotiable. I am glad to see that that is a rule on wikipedia. I will do my best to enforce it (ie by removing clear violations such as labelling people terrorists) and I hope you will help. The "warning" I removed was a warrior trying to threaten me, that particular editor has such interest in keeping the article biased that he would rather put back in spelling and grammatical errors than allow neutral edits. I hope you will speak to each of these editors about their editing habits as well. Sepsis II (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Can you use the talk page of the article instead of messaging me on my talk page? Thanks,VR _talk 04:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Sepsis II. It is clear you've broken the WP:1RR rule at Operation Pillar of Cloud. You may be able to avoid a block if you will agree not to edit the article or its talk page for one month. If you are accepting this offer please respond at the noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Shrike, you are a conniving twisted editor, I have found out that you are already a party to an extremely similar attack on another editor, except this one is on the other page. On that page the other editors are vilifying the accusing party, and I am happy to see that. The other editors generally state that these accusations of wrong doing go against common sense, the good of wikipedia, and that it would cause a "chilling effect". I strongly agree with these fair editors in their rebuffs of editors of your kind. Even the editor who threatened me earlier states, and I quote "Probably everyone who edited the article on that day is guilty of violating 1rr as being construed in this instance. Its a fast moving story constantly being updated. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 11:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)"(sic) Please know that I never care to speak to either of you ever again, I do not care for your ways of intimidation. Sepsis II (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Violation of the WP:1RR restriction on a page related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, per WP:AN3#User:Sepsis II reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24h). Making two reverts within 24 hours is enough to trigger this sanction. The closing admin is not required to analyze the neutrality of the edits, but in this case both sides of the dispute have something to say for themselves. It is *not* up to a single editor like yourself to remedy whatever is wrong with this article. Editors should try to reach a consensus on how to present the material in a neutral way that does not favor either side of the real-world dispute. Edit warring is not helpful in the search for a sufficiently neutral version. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

And I quote,

"I really don't think these reverts are what the 1RR restriction is meant to restrain. I don't think we have the "recent news brings in flurry of new accounts with little knowledge or regard of our basic content policies" scenario in mind when we imposed the topic-wide 1RR. I don't think any action is needed" - T. Canens

"Probably everyone who edited the article on that day is guilty of violating 1rr as being construed in this instance. Its a fast moving story constantly being updated." --brewcrewer

I will say the same thing Al Almeer son said, " Any editor...could see my edits are simply an attempt to maintain the neutrality of a currently "hot" article in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST and nothing more."

It is also very important to note that a large number of editors have breached 1RR on this same article, inclduing Plot Spoiler, AnkhMorpork, Mor2, Knowledgekid87, etc, etc. This block is absolutely ridiculous.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=There is no reason to block me, my intentions were good and my actions were good. All neutral editors have agreed that this 1RR should have be ignored for this situation. And I quote, "I really don't think these reverts are what the 1RR restriction is meant to restrain. I don't think we have the "recent news brings in flurry of new accounts with little knowledge or regard of our basic content policies" scenario in mind when we imposed the topic-wide 1RR. I don't think any action is needed" - T. Canens "Probably everyone who edited the article on that day is guilty of violating 1rr as being construed in this instance. Its a fast moving story constantly being updated." --brewcrewer I will say the same thing Al Almeer son said, " Any editor...could see my edits are simply an attempt to maintain the neutrality of a currently "hot" article in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST and nothing more." It is also very important to note that a large number of editors have breached 1RR on this same article, inclduing Plot Spoiler, AnkhMorpork, Mor2, Knowledgekid87, etc, etc. This block is absolutely ridiculous. ] (]) 02:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=There is no reason to block me, my intentions were good and my actions were good. All neutral editors have agreed that this 1RR should have be ignored for this situation. And I quote, "I really don't think these reverts are what the 1RR restriction is meant to restrain. I don't think we have the "recent news brings in flurry of new accounts with little knowledge or regard of our basic content policies" scenario in mind when we imposed the topic-wide 1RR. I don't think any action is needed" - T. Canens "Probably everyone who edited the article on that day is guilty of violating 1rr as being construed in this instance. Its a fast moving story constantly being updated." --brewcrewer I will say the same thing Al Almeer son said, " Any editor...could see my edits are simply an attempt to maintain the neutrality of a currently "hot" article in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST and nothing more." It is also very important to note that a large number of editors have breached 1RR on this same article, inclduing Plot Spoiler, AnkhMorpork, Mor2, Knowledgekid87, etc, etc. This block is absolutely ridiculous. ] (]) 02:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=There is no reason to block me, my intentions were good and my actions were good. All neutral editors have agreed that this 1RR should have be ignored for this situation. And I quote, "I really don't think these reverts are what the 1RR restriction is meant to restrain. I don't think we have the "recent news brings in flurry of new accounts with little knowledge or regard of our basic content policies" scenario in mind when we imposed the topic-wide 1RR. I don't think any action is needed" - T. Canens "Probably everyone who edited the article on that day is guilty of violating 1rr as being construed in this instance. Its a fast moving story constantly being updated." --brewcrewer I will say the same thing Al Almeer son said, " Any editor...could see my edits are simply an attempt to maintain the neutrality of a currently "hot" article in accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST and nothing more." It is also very important to note that a large number of editors have breached 1RR on this same article, inclduing Plot Spoiler, AnkhMorpork, Mor2, Knowledgekid87, etc, etc. This block is absolutely ridiculous. ] (]) 02:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock