Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupied Palestine and Syrian Golan Heights Advocacy Initiative. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. Specifically, you cannot call a living person a "Nazi propagandist" without reliable sources doing so anywhere on this site.
nableezy -
23:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Please don't add your personal opinions of the sources into the discussion, especially if they are disparaging to living people - these kind of ad hominem attacks are not convincing, and will likely get you blocked. Instead, if you feel these sources are not reliable (and I agree with you on that), you will be much more effective by simply arguing to delete the article in question- just follow the format of the people who commented on the discussion before you. This is called 'not voting" (often abbreviated !vote), because eventually, an administrator will decide if to delete the article or keep it based on the strengths of the arguments not the number of "votes". HupHollandHup ( talk) 02:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
23:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.
This is an official warning. Your behavior has already been so egregious that had you previously been informed of this policy, your account would be blocked now. Any repetition of this tendentious behavior will lead immediately to a block, in particular, any calling of persons Nazis who are not actually Nazis. Looie496 ( talk) 04:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a new essay that could be of interest. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. You have been blocked specifically for this edit, which violates the warning you were given two days ago. Looie496 ( talk) 16:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Occupied Palestine and Syrian Golan Heights Advocacy Initiative. Content of this nature could be regarded as
defamatory and is in violation of
Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. Specifically, you cannot call a living person a "Nazi propagandist" without reliable sources doing so anywhere on this site.
nableezy -
23:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Please don't add your personal opinions of the sources into the discussion, especially if they are disparaging to living people - these kind of ad hominem attacks are not convincing, and will likely get you blocked. Instead, if you feel these sources are not reliable (and I agree with you on that), you will be much more effective by simply arguing to delete the article in question- just follow the format of the people who commented on the discussion before you. This is called 'not voting" (often abbreviated !vote), because eventually, an administrator will decide if to delete the article or keep it based on the strengths of the arguments not the number of "votes". HupHollandHup ( talk) 02:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
23:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.
Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.
This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.
This is an official warning. Your behavior has already been so egregious that had you previously been informed of this policy, your account would be blocked now. Any repetition of this tendentious behavior will lead immediately to a block, in particular, any calling of persons Nazis who are not actually Nazis. Looie496 ( talk) 04:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There's a new essay that could be of interest. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. You have been blocked specifically for this edit, which violates the warning you were given two days ago. Looie496 ( talk) 16:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)