Welcome!
Hello, Samuel B52, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
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!
Nilotpal
42 18:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Salut! Pour faire des italiques, au lieu des caractères gras, tu utilises deux apostrophes au lieu de trois:
''italiques'', au lieu des '''caractères gras'''
Physchim62 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you made several very POV edits to this article.
Please note that this article is under
discretionary sanctions and this sort of behavior might get you banned.
I suggest you fix your edits to be more in line with Wikipedia policies such as
WP:V and
WP:NPOV, among others.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
And please read carefully referenced links as I do. [6] [7] is not in accordance with source linked. If you menace me another time for nothing, I will ask for sanction about you also. I hope I'm enough clear. My English is poor but I'm not impressionable.
The israeli source is not in English. So it's not a reliable source. Please read Policies about what is a reliable source
Cheers from France
Samuel B52 (
talk) 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
So I don't like to be menace as you've done. It's not my conception of courtesy. for the moment, you are not a example for courtesy. Samuel B52 ( talk) 17:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Samuel,
I guess I'm just the latest person to note the many POV edits you made to the flotilla article recently. Don't feel singled out too much though, I've also brought this up with editors who are putting in too much POV on the Israeli side.
Please keep on helping with the article, but try to be more neutral, avoid POV wording, and focus on the facts.
Cheers, Zuchinni one ( talk) 13:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you could talk to me on the page for the article. I prefer. And please be more accurate about allegations I made non neutral POV.
Thks Samuel B52 ( talk) 13:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
pas de pb ;) j'ai vécu en France pendant sept ans, alors mon français est d'un niveau passable, mais je ne connais pas d'équivalent en français de la phrase "walking wounded"! Originalement, c'était une expression militaire, mais aujourd'hui c'est trés répandue pour tout genre de blessure réelle mais sans gravité – comme si tu peux marcher tu n'es pas "vraiment" blessé. Physchim62 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
I thought I'd replied at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid, but I guess I didn't!
When I said I would "dodge 1", what I meant was that I wouldn't really address the first issue (the issue of renaming the article). "Dodge" means "avoid" or "evade": I was avoiding the first issue because I thought the second issue was the more important issue in that discussion.
I live in Scotland (and come from New Zealand) and I have some bad habits with language: I often use terms that native-English speakers wouldn't recognise. If I do that in future, please don't hesitate to ask me to clarify what I mean.
Happy editing! TFOWR 15:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Samuel,
You might not be aware, but currently the Gaza flotilla article is under 1 revert protection. Which means you should not change or revert another author's edit more than once in a 24 hour period.
You have made 2 reverts in the last few hours.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368408696&oldid=368407963
and
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368389973&oldid=368389611
Also you should look at WP:Vandal to get a better idea as to what constitutes vandalism, because it doesn't look like the edit you removed would be considered as such.
Anyway, I'm not going to report you or anything. Lot of people made the same mistakes without realizing about the 1RR protection. This is just an FYI so you can be aware of it for yourself and for other editors that might be making the same mistake.
Cheers,
Zuchinni one ( talk) 16:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
Here you suggested that you were going to re-add a "see also" for the SS Exodus. Please do not!
There is currently no consensus for it to be included, and several editors have removed it.
I happen to support its inclusion, but we have to respect the consensus (which is, currently, that it should not be included yet).
TFOWR 19:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I read the
consensus and I clearly understand that we don't revert a addition because there is
No consensus. Secondly,
History don't belong to a part of us, but to all of us, I think. And 3th, multiple RS mentioned that link. For this three reasons, I will put this again because it's in accordance with WP policies. If it's not possible because a another editor remove it, I will add it with other solution, for example in the lead, in introduction or in a another section. Or may be should we find another process or policy to make this edit ? ( Please, could you talk to me on the talk page of the article ? I prefer to not hide what is my position and my opinion. I think It can be helpful for the others also to read comments).
Samuel B52 (
talk) 19:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I believe this is your 3rd revert to the Gaza Flotilla raid article in about 7 hours (previous [8] [9], one revert for the same text, one unrelated). As you are aware, this article is under a one revert restriction as is clearly stated on the top of the talk page. This means you are allowed to revert once per 24 hours. Please self-revert your edit. I see you have been notified about this earlier today as well. Be aware that violation of the one revert restriction would most likely cause you to be blocked if reported (also if some passing admin happens to notice). No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is also a revert, re-inserting material which you were told specifically on the talk page you have no consensus to do. The fact you added a few words (an alternative name for the ship) but essentially inserted the same material (with the same source) doesn't change the fact it's a revert. You're new here and I'm seriously trying not to WP:BITE, but if you continue with this behavior I will report you and you'll most likely get banned. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Samuel, I'm well aware that you're new to English Wikipedia, although you say you have some experience on French Wikipedia. You must be aware that you have stepped into a minefield with the topic you have chosen to edit. Edit-warring is unacceptable anywhere on English Wikipedia, and particularly on topics relating to the many conflicts between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Our efforts should be directed towards improving the article, not simply trying to position our favorite edits where we want them. For this reason, the article Gaza flotilla raid is subject to a one-revert restriction: if someone removes your addition, you can replace it; but if it is removed again, you must wait for at least 24 hours. Obviously, in both cases, it is better to go to the talk page and see what people dislike about your edit before reverting, but you must go to the talk page with an open mind, prepared to have a mistake pointed out to you. These edits [10] [11] could well be taken to be an edit-war, given the lapse of only five hours between them. Please try to calm down and listen to people on the talk page, especially those who you don't agree with, or you will be temporarily blocked from editing English Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Samuel, je suis tout à fait conscient que tu manques d'expérience sur le Wikipédia anglophone, alors que tu dises avoir une certaine expérience sur le Wikipédia francophone. Tu dois être conscient que tu es entré dans un champs de mines avec le sujet que tu souhaites éditer. Les guerres d'éditions ne sont acceptables nulle part au Wikipédia anglophone, et pour autant même moins sur les articles traitant les plusiers conflits entre Israël et l'Autorité Palestinienne. Nos efforts doivent être orientés vers l'amélioration de l'article, et ne pas seulement vers le pistonnage de nos éditions les plus chéries. Alors, l'article " Gaza flotilla raid" fait le suject d'une restriction d'édtion particulière, dite 1RR: si quelqu'un révoque tes changements, tu peux les remplacer; mais si les changements sont révoqués de nouveau, il faut attendre au moins 24 heures. Évidemment, il vaut mieux dans les deux cas d'amener le désaccord à la page de discussion de l'article, pour voir ce que les autres éditeur te reprochent de tes changements, avant de révoquer qui que soit: mais il faut te présenter à la page de discussion avec un ésprit qui accepterait des éventuels critiques. Ces changements [12] [13] pourrait bien constituer une guerre d'éditions, vu le délai de seulement cinq heures entre les deux. S'il te plaît, essaie de te calmer et d'écouter les gens qui contribuent à la page de discussion de l'article, surtoit les personnes avec qui tu es en désaccord. Sinon, tu seras bloqué du Wikipédia anglophone pour une durée définie (qui pourrait être des heures, des jours ou des semaines). Physchim62 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to be in anyway rude, but understood from some of your comments that your english is not very good. If that is the case I'm wondering why you choose to edit Gaza flotilla raid that is currently an very active article where words and sentenced have been tweaked to the edge of getting it written in good English. The result is that your edits get reverted. Maybe you should chose articles that aren't "on the edge" where your edits get better appreciated. -- Kslotte ( talk) 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a peek at this: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Some_questionable_past_edits -- Kslotte ( talk) 14:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Samuel B52, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
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!
Nilotpal
42 18:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Salut! Pour faire des italiques, au lieu des caractères gras, tu utilises deux apostrophes au lieu de trois:
''italiques'', au lieu des '''caractères gras'''
Physchim62 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you made several very POV edits to this article.
Please note that this article is under
discretionary sanctions and this sort of behavior might get you banned.
I suggest you fix your edits to be more in line with Wikipedia policies such as
WP:V and
WP:NPOV, among others.
No More Mr Nice Guy (
talk) 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
And please read carefully referenced links as I do. [6] [7] is not in accordance with source linked. If you menace me another time for nothing, I will ask for sanction about you also. I hope I'm enough clear. My English is poor but I'm not impressionable.
The israeli source is not in English. So it's not a reliable source. Please read Policies about what is a reliable source
Cheers from France
Samuel B52 (
talk) 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
So I don't like to be menace as you've done. It's not my conception of courtesy. for the moment, you are not a example for courtesy. Samuel B52 ( talk) 17:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Samuel,
I guess I'm just the latest person to note the many POV edits you made to the flotilla article recently. Don't feel singled out too much though, I've also brought this up with editors who are putting in too much POV on the Israeli side.
Please keep on helping with the article, but try to be more neutral, avoid POV wording, and focus on the facts.
Cheers, Zuchinni one ( talk) 13:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, you could talk to me on the page for the article. I prefer. And please be more accurate about allegations I made non neutral POV.
Thks Samuel B52 ( talk) 13:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
pas de pb ;) j'ai vécu en France pendant sept ans, alors mon français est d'un niveau passable, mais je ne connais pas d'équivalent en français de la phrase "walking wounded"! Originalement, c'était une expression militaire, mais aujourd'hui c'est trés répandue pour tout genre de blessure réelle mais sans gravité – comme si tu peux marcher tu n'es pas "vraiment" blessé. Physchim62 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
I thought I'd replied at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid, but I guess I didn't!
When I said I would "dodge 1", what I meant was that I wouldn't really address the first issue (the issue of renaming the article). "Dodge" means "avoid" or "evade": I was avoiding the first issue because I thought the second issue was the more important issue in that discussion.
I live in Scotland (and come from New Zealand) and I have some bad habits with language: I often use terms that native-English speakers wouldn't recognise. If I do that in future, please don't hesitate to ask me to clarify what I mean.
Happy editing! TFOWR 15:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Samuel,
You might not be aware, but currently the Gaza flotilla article is under 1 revert protection. Which means you should not change or revert another author's edit more than once in a 24 hour period.
You have made 2 reverts in the last few hours.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368408696&oldid=368407963
and
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368389973&oldid=368389611
Also you should look at WP:Vandal to get a better idea as to what constitutes vandalism, because it doesn't look like the edit you removed would be considered as such.
Anyway, I'm not going to report you or anything. Lot of people made the same mistakes without realizing about the 1RR protection. This is just an FYI so you can be aware of it for yourself and for other editors that might be making the same mistake.
Cheers,
Zuchinni one ( talk) 16:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
Here you suggested that you were going to re-add a "see also" for the SS Exodus. Please do not!
There is currently no consensus for it to be included, and several editors have removed it.
I happen to support its inclusion, but we have to respect the consensus (which is, currently, that it should not be included yet).
TFOWR 19:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I read the
consensus and I clearly understand that we don't revert a addition because there is
No consensus. Secondly,
History don't belong to a part of us, but to all of us, I think. And 3th, multiple RS mentioned that link. For this three reasons, I will put this again because it's in accordance with WP policies. If it's not possible because a another editor remove it, I will add it with other solution, for example in the lead, in introduction or in a another section. Or may be should we find another process or policy to make this edit ? ( Please, could you talk to me on the talk page of the article ? I prefer to not hide what is my position and my opinion. I think It can be helpful for the others also to read comments).
Samuel B52 (
talk) 19:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
I believe this is your 3rd revert to the Gaza Flotilla raid article in about 7 hours (previous [8] [9], one revert for the same text, one unrelated). As you are aware, this article is under a one revert restriction as is clearly stated on the top of the talk page. This means you are allowed to revert once per 24 hours. Please self-revert your edit. I see you have been notified about this earlier today as well. Be aware that violation of the one revert restriction would most likely cause you to be blocked if reported (also if some passing admin happens to notice). No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is also a revert, re-inserting material which you were told specifically on the talk page you have no consensus to do. The fact you added a few words (an alternative name for the ship) but essentially inserted the same material (with the same source) doesn't change the fact it's a revert. You're new here and I'm seriously trying not to WP:BITE, but if you continue with this behavior I will report you and you'll most likely get banned. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Samuel, I'm well aware that you're new to English Wikipedia, although you say you have some experience on French Wikipedia. You must be aware that you have stepped into a minefield with the topic you have chosen to edit. Edit-warring is unacceptable anywhere on English Wikipedia, and particularly on topics relating to the many conflicts between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Our efforts should be directed towards improving the article, not simply trying to position our favorite edits where we want them. For this reason, the article Gaza flotilla raid is subject to a one-revert restriction: if someone removes your addition, you can replace it; but if it is removed again, you must wait for at least 24 hours. Obviously, in both cases, it is better to go to the talk page and see what people dislike about your edit before reverting, but you must go to the talk page with an open mind, prepared to have a mistake pointed out to you. These edits [10] [11] could well be taken to be an edit-war, given the lapse of only five hours between them. Please try to calm down and listen to people on the talk page, especially those who you don't agree with, or you will be temporarily blocked from editing English Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Samuel, je suis tout à fait conscient que tu manques d'expérience sur le Wikipédia anglophone, alors que tu dises avoir une certaine expérience sur le Wikipédia francophone. Tu dois être conscient que tu es entré dans un champs de mines avec le sujet que tu souhaites éditer. Les guerres d'éditions ne sont acceptables nulle part au Wikipédia anglophone, et pour autant même moins sur les articles traitant les plusiers conflits entre Israël et l'Autorité Palestinienne. Nos efforts doivent être orientés vers l'amélioration de l'article, et ne pas seulement vers le pistonnage de nos éditions les plus chéries. Alors, l'article " Gaza flotilla raid" fait le suject d'une restriction d'édtion particulière, dite 1RR: si quelqu'un révoque tes changements, tu peux les remplacer; mais si les changements sont révoqués de nouveau, il faut attendre au moins 24 heures. Évidemment, il vaut mieux dans les deux cas d'amener le désaccord à la page de discussion de l'article, pour voir ce que les autres éditeur te reprochent de tes changements, avant de révoquer qui que soit: mais il faut te présenter à la page de discussion avec un ésprit qui accepterait des éventuels critiques. Ces changements [12] [13] pourrait bien constituer une guerre d'éditions, vu le délai de seulement cinq heures entre les deux. S'il te plaît, essaie de te calmer et d'écouter les gens qui contribuent à la page de discussion de l'article, surtoit les personnes avec qui tu es en désaccord. Sinon, tu seras bloqué du Wikipédia anglophone pour une durée définie (qui pourrait être des heures, des jours ou des semaines). Physchim62 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to be in anyway rude, but understood from some of your comments that your english is not very good. If that is the case I'm wondering why you choose to edit Gaza flotilla raid that is currently an very active article where words and sentenced have been tweaked to the edge of getting it written in good English. The result is that your edits get reverted. Maybe you should chose articles that aren't "on the edge" where your edits get better appreciated. -- Kslotte ( talk) 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a peek at this: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Some_questionable_past_edits -- Kslotte ( talk) 14:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)