Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:35, 13 March 2008

Hi, I noticed some of your edits.

Welcome!

Hello, Gni, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ←Humus sapiens←ну? 04:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Article on Jimmy Carter's Palestine Peace not Apartheid

You wrote:

I was hoping you might weigh in on a dispute between myself and NYScholar on the Palestine Peace not Apartheid discussion page. The dispute is summarized under discussion section 19, "Criticism vs. Carter's response." Up until now the discussion has been a back and forth between me and NYScholar, so it would probably help if a few other people weighed in. Your thoughts are appreciated. Gni 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not currently interested in wading into more controversial articles in areas where I am moderately knowledgable but not expert. I suggest that you post notes on the talk pages of any appropriate WikiProjects. At least one relevant project would be Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Jewish History, but I imagine that if you look through the list there will be others. - Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting sourced info and pushing the CAMERA POV

Please don't delete reliably sourced balance with edit summaries such as ""This section isn't for comments about CAMERA." If CAMERA is making a claim, that section is the appropriate place for reliably sourced balance. You also seem intent on inserting the CAMERA POV throughout this encyclopedia article, and others. While CAMERA may certainly wish to portray themselves a certain way, for tax purposes or for whatever reason, an encyclopedia describes an organization based on what reliable sources say. Eg, it is valid to describe CAMERA as pro-Israel, based upon overwhelming sources using that description, and it is valid to describe CAMERA as supporting a boycott--in both these instances, you seem intent on inserting repeatedly CAMERA's own, somewhat self serving formulations, rather than what is in reliable sources. Please try and familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and other guidelines regarding these issues. Boodlesthecat (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles should be a)fair and accurate, and b)well written. Moreover, wikipedia articles should be bound by one standard. The changes that you have been pushing move the article farther and farther from these goals.

Unfortunately, there are little to no serious responses to these and other points I've raised and elaborated on in the discussion section to that article. Gni (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and on the Dvorkin thing -- aside from the fact that ad hominem comment doesn't relate to the specific charge, and so doesn't really belong in the article as a response to that specific charge -- it seems you're misrepresenting what Dvorkin said. It's not quite true, as you claimed, that Dvorkin "described the pressure from CAMERA and other organizations as 'a form of journalistic McCarthyism.' His comment was more qualified: "In my opinion, the pressure on NPR from these groups can constitute a form of journalistic McCarthyism."

OK, you are out of control with your single purpose POV pushing, hijacking of the article, and complete ignoring of Misplaced Pages guidelines. This has been posted elsewhere for help. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Boodlesthecat (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your reversions have been posted to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Misplaced Pages's three revert rule says "an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period". After breaking 3RR, it is best to revert your change back to the previous version. --68.23.8.245 (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)