Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:27, 4 July 2012

Palestine Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are: Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring. Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

FMEP

Is not an RS. I am sure Arutz Sheva also has plenty to say on this matter.Ankh.Morpork 12:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking me here. Argue your opinion, don't state obiter dicta, at the appropriate WP:RS forum, and notify me when you do.Nishidani (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in your view as to why you consider this an RS and have used it to make contentious claims; I ask this as I have similar style sources that I would like to include to provide an interesting perspective.Ankh.Morpork 13:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You expressed a personal view on a source praised for its work by Zbigniew Brzezinski, Admiral William J. Crowe, which publishes views by Geoffrey Aronson, Yuval Diskin, George W. Ball, Philip Klutznick, Yehoshafat Harkabi, Sari Nusseibeh, Helena Cobban and dozens of other top-ranking authorities on US foreign policy and the Middle East. If you can't see at first sight that a Washington think tank/NGO with these interests and credentials and support is not suitable as per WP:RS, either visit an optometrist or refer the question to your new mentor, who will illuminate you. The question you raise is a non-question, since it implies that my use of this source is based on subjective, personal, rather than objective, wiki critieria.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Praise by wiki linked people for its work does not meet the standards required for the publications of this partisan NGO to considered an RS. Ankh.Morpork 17:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec)As I said, go to WP:RSN if you wish to challenge this source. You haven't done your legwork. No one appears to be complaining of it as a source on several I/P wiki pages. You trailed me here, made no case for your idiosyncratic dismissal of an eminently good source whose work is admired certainly by distinguished scholars and diplomats, people who have no record for partisan enmity. Do not adopt the habit of reverting what you dislike on spurious grounds. IR is not a right, it is a measure employed to stop egregious abuses or edit-warring, and neither existed on this page before you followed me here.Nishidani (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that my edits are "unmotivated" and are simply borne from a desire to improve the article. Ankh.Morpork 17:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

My pleasure. I'm quite happy to mentor you, (certainly not on my page where your presence is unwelcome, because I do not think you have the slightest interest in encyclopedic work. But miracles do occur.Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to proffer this ) for your use. What would your mentorship entail; I am fearful that it may be a little too classical for my liking. Ankh.Morpork 18:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I am mistaken, but that is the second time you have raised the innuendo that an interlocutor (User:Sean.hoyland was the other) has paedophilic tendencies? On a matter of classical philology, there is no known etymological connection between the Greek Μέντωρ and the Latin mentula (if you had that in mind, which, apropos, is not quite the place to put it). Admit it. You only reverted me to get back on my talk page from which you were banned, and trapped me into inadvertently reinstating your presence there? Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I am mistaken but is this the second time that I have to wag my admonishing finger at your delusional discernment of some Machiavellian scheme of which you claim has adversely effected you? I seem to recall that you spotted some latent Antisemitism exploitation in some benign text, were the victim to an elaborate good cop-bad cop routine on your talk page, and have now triumphantly exposed my revert subterfuge. I note that your editing surged after the closure of the News of the World. No I am not Moriarty incarnate and this was not a last throw of the dice attempt to grace your talk pages for which my enthusiasm has considerably dampened ever since Luke's untimely demise. Ankh.Morpork 23:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

All the recent edits turned article to POV nightmare and piece of propaganda usage of one sided sources is goes against WP:NPOV moreover some of the sources can't be used at all in wikipeda as they not reliable.Per WP:ONUS provide justification for sources that you want to use.Also please follow WP:BRD.--Shrike (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Start-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles