User talk:VivaWikipedia
Three-revert rule
[edit]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. 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. Tom Harrison Talk 13:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Francis Boyle
[edit]You wrote: You deleted the interview excerpt about Joel Zinger, stating that YouTube is not an RS. By RS do you mean reliable source? And if so, ABC, CNN, FoxNews, and other supposedly credible sources post their videos on YouTube. Are they not reliable sources either? Moreover, why is a quotation taken directly from an interview of a person that you can see with your own eyes not reliable? Thanks.
My Response
[edit]- Please see WP Perennial websites: YouTube and WP: Video links for Wikipedia policy on Youtube as a reliable source. Certain Youtube videos, such as those from mainstream agencies and organizations (e.g. ABC, CNN, FoxNews) are generally considered reliable. However, your video is derived from something called the "Representative Press." This is certainly not a mainstream source, nor does it meet the requirements for notability (if it were a self-published source by Boyle, then perhaps it would qualify). More to the point, Wikipedia policy clearly states that "material in a video only available on YouTube includes content not previously produced or discussed in other reliable sources, then that material may be undue and inappropriate for Wikipedia."(Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC))
Double standards?
[edit]Could you explain the reasoning behind this edit, where you removed the word "controversial" from the description of a pro-Arab book, with the edit summary "contentious label, by the manual of style/words to watch." , and this edit, where you added the word "controversial" to the description of an anti--Arab book, with no edit summary? Are you aware that this topic area is subject to discretionary sanctions, and that the above behavior is probably sufficient grounds to have you blocked or banned form editing the topic area?
May 2012
[edit]Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. Shrike (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
ANI notice
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions notification
[edit]The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)