User talk:All Rows4

Welcome!

Hello, All Rows4, and

• 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

Wikipedia is a megalopolis and like in any city, interactions are very important. I recommend that you develop your user page so that people who visit your page may know your interests and share in them. It could be a single line telling others of not only your name but what you like or a complex page with every single thing that interests you on it. This is a great way of building up work groups that facilitate the sharing of expert knowledge on articles, talks etc. Happy building!!!  CrossTempleJay  talk 15:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of

As you age on Wikipedia, one thing you will come across and probably address will the issue of bad edits or vandalism. There are several ways of spotting them:

• by reviewing articles on your watchlist regularly and looking for bad edits
• verifying
  new changes to pages and articles

If you happen to come across a bad edit you may:

• ask an
  editor you trust to review the work for his/her inputs
• you can rollback the change if you have credible information that the edit is indeed bad
• request that the necessary change be made on the article's
  talk page
  .

Whatever you do, please be very careful about the changes you make, for a rule of thumb, discuss issues you are not sure of first before making changes. CrossTempleJay  talk 15:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G'day All Rows4,

you threw out my edit of Plan_Dalet with the apparent grounds: "this is not a blog." Perhaps not, but it (wiki) is supposed to be a reference source - or so I presume(d). I made another edit to a related article, also thrown out, on grounds: WP:V = "Material added to articles that is not attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate to the content in question may be removed," my accent on *may,* but you must be familiar with all of WP:V.

What stimulated my edits was this: "The meeting significantly advanced Herzl's and Zionism legitimacy" - an impossibility given the subsequent theft of most of Palestine by invading alien Zionists; that wiki thus contains a statement not attributable to any reliable, published source - unless such a source contains lies.

IF wiki is to be useful THEN it needs major revision, to revert to a *true* history.

BTW thnx for telling me something I already knew ("1 revision rule.") As if I would persist in the face of yours or any other's rejection.

regards, wiφ 16:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WiPhi (talk • contribs)

I am happy to hear you were already aware of the 1 Reviosn rule. Seeing as you are a new editor with less than 10 edits, that was not obvious to me, but I'm glad you took the trouble to familiarize yourself with it. You should now do the same for a few other policies, such as

WP:NPOV policy and (c) find yourself blocked for disruptive editing. Take care. All Rows4 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

The

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 inappropriately edit 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the
  Gaza beach explosion (2006) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help
  )

to two major league American scholars, on a quibble over a technicality. That means you support the removal. If you do, then go to the talk page and argue why that eminently solid source and its details should not be there. Otherwise you are assisting an anonymous hatemonger's disturbances of normal collegial editing. Thank you. Nishidani (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose people removing content based on false pretense - there was no vandalism in that edit you reverted. I have no opinion on the validity of the edit itself (other than correctly evaluating it to be non-vandalism)- that's's something for you to work out with the other editors on the article's talk page. All Rows4 (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The prior editor 'removed content based on a false pretence'. Check the edit prior to mine. 13:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Nishidani (talk)

Removing content, even based on false pretense, is not vandalism. Please read

WP:VANDALISM, as I suggested. All Rows4 (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Solntsa90 (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have a very good grasp of what is and isn't vandalism. Here is a quote from

WP:VANDALISM for you to read , and memorize: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. " All Rows4 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

It is no longer good faith when you refuse to familiarise yourself with the rules on editing certain articles; Then, it constitutes vandalism. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we'll resume his discussion when you come back from you inevitable block for edit warring. Reread what I bolded above. All Rows4 (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I highly suggest you read

Solntsa90 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in your opinion. There are sources that place these locations in Israel, and you may not remove them. All Rows4 (talk) 21:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an opinion, but a fact that Jerusalem is not in Israel, as per the international ongoing arbitration between Israel and Palestine to reach a peace agreement; Since Palestine too has claimed Jerusalem, it cannot legally belong to Israel under these conditions, and this is something that even the USA agrees on.

With that said, if you keep on vandalising Jerusalem-related articles, I will have to get a moderator involved to see forth disciplinary action against you.

Cheers!

Solntsa90 (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

WP:VANDALISM before you repeat these false allegations. Do it once more and you'll be up in an administrative board. All Rows4 (talk

)

Go for it. I've been part of the wiki Israel-Palestine project for a while now, and I'm well aware that Jerusalem is not considered part of Israel, and as you've been instructed to read the arbitration relating to the location of Jerusalem as per wikipedia (let alone international law), you are knowingly vandalising wikipedia. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested in the ongoing discussion about sock-puppetry and ip-falsifying software at Impact of paid editors and false ip software on admin elections

Cheers,

Scott P. (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC about an article that you have recently commented on is ongoing at: Talk: Dennis Hastert - Cwobeel (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I commented there. All Rows4 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The closing of an RFC in which you participated, is being challenged at

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 Arbitration Committee has authorised

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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 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.

The prior notification (March 2014) needs to be renewed since more than 12 months has elapsed, per comments at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Civil and collegial editing, and assumptions of good faith

Having reviewed the situation on the talk page that spurred this all on, I wanted to leave you the following warning.

Wikipedia operates as an encyclopedia everyone can edit, but also one everyone edits together. That collaboration requires a certain amount of cooperation, which requires a certain amount of assuming good faith of other editors and collegial behavior.

Our civility

is one of our five pillars, the core community values for the project and encyclopedia.

"That source does not say that, please review" would have been a neutral or constructive way to engage in feedback over the claims that started all of this. Feedback on reading and interpretation of sources is necessary. However, forming and promoting the opinion that it was intentional source fabrication and continually repeating it was not collegial or civil.

This is particularly important on pages lots of people disagree about. The higher level of real world conflict requires more not less of editors in that area.

Please don't go around flinging dangerous accusations around like that again. It's corrosive to the normal important discussions Wikipedia has to have. Again, reasonable and constructive feedback to an editor misinterpreting a source is very different than accusing them of doing so maliciously.

I don't believe that the incident that happened, nor your subsequent discussions, justify any official Arbitration Enforcement actions. However, people who keep this type of behavior up over extended periods of time do eventually disrupt normal discussions enough that they will get sanctioned. So, this is a somewhat informal warning. This behavior was not OK.

I am going to be closing the Arbitration Enforcement request between the other editors' backing off and the overall picture just not justifying any administrative or AE intervention. However, that discussion and this warning will remain in the record. I hope you avoid such unnecessary confrontations going forwards. They don't help the encyclopedia or your editing.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DavidHeap (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you are unaware of the wikipedia definition of reverting : my edit to Freedom Flotilla III at 01:26, 4 July 2015, does not "restore to a previous version" of this page, because no previous version ever said "began releasing". It is a new edit, not a "revert" as you claim, and furthermore, my change in line with the undisputed facts (some of the Marianne crew are still in prison as of July 5, 2015^[1]). Perhaps you would like to withdraw your spurious allegation and apologize? Or shall we elevate this? I note (above) that this is not the first complaint against you.[reply]