Shalom11111 (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
→WP:BLP: new section Tag: contentious topics alert |
||
Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
:The article is complete, there is no reason for further editing (at least in my view), so thanks but no worries. In the famous case mentioned (which I didn't originally write) Neuer may have had a leading rule - you again removed stuff mostly based on your judgement that it has no significance. Anyways, I'm really tired it all. [[User:Yambaram|Yambaram]] ([[User talk:Yambaram#top|talk]]) 00:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
:The article is complete, there is no reason for further editing (at least in my view), so thanks but no worries. In the famous case mentioned (which I didn't originally write) Neuer may have had a leading rule - you again removed stuff mostly based on your judgement that it has no significance. Anyways, I'm really tired it all. [[User:Yambaram|Yambaram]] ([[User talk:Yambaram#top|talk]]) 00:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
:When you see this, I think it would be appropriate to explain why you placed the {self-published sources} tag (examples would be helpful) so editors could remove questionable content and improve the article. Also, please make sure to discuss any future dramatic (in scale) actions on the page. [[User:Yambaram|Yambaram]] ([[User talk:Yambaram#top|talk]]) 00:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
:When you see this, I think it would be appropriate to explain why you placed the {self-published sources} tag (examples would be helpful) so editors could remove questionable content and improve the article. Also, please make sure to discuss any future dramatic (in scale) actions on the page. [[User:Yambaram|Yambaram]] ([[User talk:Yambaram#top|talk]]) 00:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[WP:BLP]] == |
|||
[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=Stop icon]] This is your '''only warning'''; if you add [[Wikipedia:Libel|defamatory content]] to Wikipedia again, you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-defamatory4im --> — [[User:MShabazz|MShabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/MShabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 16:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC) |
|||
{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' |
|||
'''Please carefully read this information:''' |
|||
The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons|here]]. |
|||
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
|||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> — [[User:MShabazz|MShabazz]] <sup>[[User talk:Malik Shabazz|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/MShabazz|Stalk]]</sub> 16:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:44, 4 February 2018
"Tinder" move reverted.
I have reverted your move of "Tinder" because it was not properly filed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Please note this process for any future page moves. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
- I responded there. Thanks and okay bd2412, I will keep that in mind. Yambaram (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
- Josh Greenberg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Conglomerate
- Mikhael Mirilashvili (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Georgian
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
tag from Jews and the United Arab Emirates, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}}
template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Redirects for Discussion. Thanks!–Ammarpad (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for writing me about this, Ammarpad, and even though it shouldn't be controversial at all, I surely will list it on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. This is simply a redundant redirect of zero use: No other country has a "Jews and " preface to it, it's funny this even has to be discussed. Yambaram (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
January 2018
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Hillel Neuer. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:49, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks but I do comment solely on content. Your "other" account was several hours short of violating the Wiki community's WP:3RR rule, not to mention that you decided to delete/redirect the said long standing 19,000 word article without any discussion or consensus, an act which I think others would not view in a positive light and may report. Keep that in mind as well. Yambaram (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep up your POV-pushing and personal attacks and things will not end well for you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- For the record, I chose to reply thoroughly to the above comment on the Administrators noticeboard/Incidents page here, in hope that objective members will take a more serious look at your editing. Yambaram (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep up your POV-pushing and personal attacks and things will not end well for you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks but I do comment solely on content. Your "other" account was several hours short of violating the Wiki community's WP:3RR rule, not to mention that you decided to delete/redirect the said long standing 19,000 word article without any discussion or consensus, an act which I think others would not view in a positive light and may report. Keep that in mind as well. Yambaram (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Please restore my post
That you deleted by mistake thanks.--Shrike (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Shrike. What? Where? Yambaram (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- I see, on the discussion, oops, sorry! Must have happened as I read/commented on the page. Yambaram (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for noticing, Strike. I wonder why the editor you discussed the issue with ignored my reply. The point is really undeniable now, and hopefully other editors will abide to neutral point of view. Yambaram (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Please read more carefully. In this edit, you said you added "a book co-authored by" Neuer. But the link you included clearly describes what the book is:
- Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online. Pages: 24. Chapters: Emily Murphy, Raheel Raza, Hillel Neuer, Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Irwin Cotler, ...
Obviously that isn't a book co-authored by Neuer. It's a book co-authored by dozens of pseudonymous Wikipedia editors. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Here you are right. I searched for books by Hillel Neuer on Google Books and this came up as the first result - and since his name appeared as one of the authors, I added it (and missed the "fine print"). Okay, I see you undid the edit. By the way, while I understand why that article could be deemed unfit in the form it was at 6 months ago, I hope you do see its encyclopedic significance now after contributors have improved it so much. Yambaram (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Please learn how to read a source—and an edit summary
The court didn't cite Neuer for anything, nor did the "source" say he did. And the source was not the U.S. House of Representatives, it was a speaker's biography, which is typically submitted by the speaker.
If you can't find sources about Neuer without lying about what the sources say, you really need to quit. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- For the third time, I checked and my memory did not betray me, it does say "Neuer was cited by the U.S. Federal Court for the high quality of his pro bono advocacy." The source is on the government's domain, and even the assumption that Neuer's organization submitted it is not an automatic reason to dismiss it. But it can be discussed at the article's talk page (where you have yet to specify the reason for the self-published sources tag). An encyclopedic article should provide all relevant information about the person, what is the point of these constant deletions and fights? Yambaram (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Neuer at Paul Weiss
Really? There were, according to the press release (the only source), five partners and 11 associates who worked on the case, plus six former associates who once contributed—one of whom was Neuer. Do you really think that needs to be in his biography?
If you continue, I will bring the article to WP:BLP/N. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- The article is complete, there is no reason for further editing (at least in my view), so thanks but no worries. In the famous case mentioned (which I didn't originally write) Neuer may have had a leading rule - you again removed stuff mostly based on your judgement that it has no significance. Anyways, I'm really tired it all. Yambaram (talk) 00:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- When you see this, I think it would be appropriate to explain why you placed the {self-published sources} tag (examples would be helpful) so editors could remove questionable content and improve the article. Also, please make sure to discuss any future dramatic (in scale) actions on the page. Yambaram (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)