Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:42, 21 March 2013

Zionism

As I pointed out in my edit summary, there is no evidence of any ongoing dispute or discussion of the POV of this section. As I requested, should anyone re-add the tag, could you please explain on talk with reference to Misplaced Pages policy and evidence what the current issues are regarding the NPOV of this section. See Template:POV: "The editor placing this template in an article should promptly provide a reason on the article's talk page. In the absence of a reason and it is not clear what the neutrality issue is, this tag may be removed by any editor."

I am going to remove the tag pending any relevant discussion on the talk page. Dlv999 (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, Z554! Thank you for your contributions. I am Shrike and I have been editing Misplaced Pages for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Misplaced Pages:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

January 2013

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

February 2013

Your recent editing history at Dan Savage shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

ARBPIA

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

nableezy - 17:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

nableezy posted an obvious attempt at intimidation on my talk page, and is another editor infamous for his close watch and POV editing of articles involving the Jewish state. He is also quite a comedian, stating on the Jerusalem talk page that he has "no conflict of interest with this topic". This is blatant dishonesty, in other words, a lie. It appears sean.hoyland and nableezy are working in tandem. It is against protocol to make threats against an editor who makes legitimate, good faith edits. Intellectual dishonesty has no place here. Z554 (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)