Petri Krohn (talk | contribs) →Welcome: new section |
rm non-AGF BITE THE NEWCOMER |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
:Actually, I should like to apologise for saving time by using a ready made templated message, which was not as appropriate in this case as it might have been. "Introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints" is not really what I meant. The issue really is that you describe a particular view without attributing it to anyone, and without providing any sources to justify it. Is it true that "There is no dispute on the clear illegality of actions made by parties to the conflict other than Israel"? if it really is undisputed fact then it should be possible to find [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] indicating that it is. If, on the other hand, there is a dispute on that issue, then the article should not say that there isn't. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 13:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
:Actually, I should like to apologise for saving time by using a ready made templated message, which was not as appropriate in this case as it might have been. "Introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints" is not really what I meant. The issue really is that you describe a particular view without attributing it to anyone, and without providing any sources to justify it. Is it true that "There is no dispute on the clear illegality of actions made by parties to the conflict other than Israel"? if it really is undisputed fact then it should be possible to find [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] indicating that it is. If, on the other hand, there is a dispute on that issue, then the article should not say that there isn't. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 13:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Contentious edits == |
|||
When you make an edit that is reverted you should then go to the talk page and not simply re-revet. If you continue making such contentious edits, edits that approach the level of vandalism, I will be asking that administrative action be taken against this account. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 21:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
|||
== Welcome == |
== Welcome == |
Revision as of 02:33, 6 October 2010
Welcome
Welcome!
Hello, Bbeehvh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for From Time Immemorial. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome!
brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
From time immemorial
The article was the result of a long standing consensus on how its reception should be portrayed. If you wish to alter it, you should first make note of where you disagree in the talk page. Shoplifter (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to International law and the Arab–Israeli conflict. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I should like to apologise for saving time by using a ready made templated message, which was not as appropriate in this case as it might have been. "Introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints" is not really what I meant. The issue really is that you describe a particular view without attributing it to anyone, and without providing any sources to justify it. Is it true that "There is no dispute on the clear illegality of actions made by parties to the conflict other than Israel"? if it really is undisputed fact then it should be possible to find reliable sources indicating that it is. If, on the other hand, there is a dispute on that issue, then the article should not say that there isn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Welcome
You seems to be new here. Starting of with the most difficult subjects may not be the wisest thing to do. Anyway, I have asked that someone would help you get acquainted. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#User:Bbeehvh. -- Petri Krohn (talk)