Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:25, 25 July 2011

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Goodwinsands, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Israel Shamir. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Your editing history?

I am surprised at how much you think you know about policy for a "new user." Were you a long time AnonIP who took a new name? Hopefully you aren't a banned user now using a sockpuppet, something very common in the Israel-Palestine editing area. Thanks for info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't clam to know Misplaced Pages rules inside and out. I do, however, know how to read, and that is enough for even a newbie to see that there was a considerable difference between what the rules actually say and what you implied they said, a wide enough distance to justify a comment. Goodwinsands (talk) 04:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I might as well add this. When I told some friends that I was thinking of editing Misplaced Pages instead of just getting frustrated at its inaccuracy, one of the first things they warned me about was "ownership issues" on certain entries, with editors who ceaselessly patrol their turf with intent to repel all comers, using what ever Nixonian dirty tricks necessary to guarantee the article continued to say that day was night and cold was hot, no matter how wrong. And their advice was simple: in such cases, simply walk away from an article like that. This is advice I am weighing. Goodwinsands (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Counterpunch

Thanks for taking a sane editing perspective at the Counterpunch article, where even my attempts to comment on the talkpage are now being redacted for soapboxing, while denial of Holocaust denial is left standing... BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Bob. It's very frustrating seeing people fall for the dodge "Just because I don't think Hitler ordered it, or Nazis used gas chambers, or they built extermination camps, or that six million Jews were killed, that doesn't make me a Holocaust denier. There once was a guy named Meyer killed by a guy named Hans, so *that* was the Holocaust, and I don't deny that so don't call me a Holocaust denier."

If you look through the archives of the Israel Shamir talk page, you'll see that there's one editor who repeatedly just blanked any reference to Holocaust denial in Israel Shamir's entry. Then the reliable sources started stacking up, and a quick poll showed he was outvoted something like seven to one. But now the same battle is being fought again from the "Holocaust denial? What Holocaust denial?" folks: "If he doesn't come right out and say that there was no Holocaust, you can't call him one no matter what all the reliable sources say." Goodwinsands (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

BLPN Israel Shamir

Hi, disputed cat is under discussion at the BLP noticeboard - please do not replace it without consensus there. Are you aware the article is under editing restrictions - please see the template at the top of the talkpage thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rather, there was no consensus to remove it, so I replaced it. If you look into the archives of the discussion page, you'll recognize that there was a strong consensus to classify Shamir as a Holocaust denier, and you were apparently the lone dissenter. Goodwinsands (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Gilad Atzmon: Edit warring notice

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please revert you revert of my edits and discuss on talk page. I also may have to bring to BLP if other non-biased editors do not get involved. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed this to a 1RR report for reasons stated here Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Gilad_Atzmon:_violation_of_1RR. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)