This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shrike (talk | contribs) at 08:29, 11 July 2012 (Notice of discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:29, 11 July 2012 by Shrike (talk | contribs) (Notice of discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring (TW))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Fz62, 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:
- 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!
Marokwitz (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
September 2011
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Palestinian Media Watch, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Marokwitz (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
u have offered help, please replace this template with
I don't understand why my changes would amount to 'original research'. I believe it is important factual data based on primary reliable sources. Fz62 (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- You combined two published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say - specifically, that PMW is sponsored by a criminal. Please read WP:SYNTH. You need a single source saying that. Furthermore, primary sources should not be used for claims about living people. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. " See WP:BLPPRIMARY. If it is indeed an important and notable point about PMW, then it should be easy for you to find better sources. Marokwitz (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- The information that the Michael Cherney Foundation funds PMW is from the Michael Cherney Foundation itself. What else is needed there? I found other sources regarding the second sentence. Do I need to quote other available sources as well? Now the paragragh is very similar to the one above, about PMW's director. Fz62 (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- This does not resolve the issue with WP:SYNTH. You are still taking two sources, and combining them in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say - specifically, that PMW is sponsored by a wanted criminal. You need to have a single source saying both. The fact that somebody has donated money to PMW, and there happens to be a warrant for his arrest, is not relevant to an article about PMW unless a reliable source made this linkage. Otherwise, it is your own personal synthesis of two unrelated facts, which is a type of original research. I hope this is clear now. Marokwitz (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I am not convinced. I added two sentences. The first is about who sponsors PMW. Clearly relevant. The second gives important information about who the sponsor is, also clearly relevant. The readers can do their personal synthesis.Fz62 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I have not checked the sources, but if they say what you reckon they say then I don't see any "original research". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- It is a synthesis of published material that advances a position. Are you familiar with WP:SYNTH? Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that an organization is somehow funded by crime. If this was true, then it should be easy to find a single source saying so directly. Marokwitz (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with you. I have not checked the sources, but if they say what you reckon they say then I don't see any "original research". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I am not convinced. I added two sentences. The first is about who sponsors PMW. Clearly relevant. The second gives important information about who the sponsor is, also clearly relevant. The readers can do their personal synthesis.Fz62 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
1RR on all I/P conflict articles
Please revert yourself there are 1RR on all I/P articles as evident from talk page.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:02, 11 July 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 08:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)