User talk:71.220.89.177

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, sorry for reverting your edits to Palestinian people earlier, I now see you had a point. I restored an earlier version of that paragraph, could you please tell me what you think?--Rudjek 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As I understood them, the papers you cited didn't actually support the hypothesis on the entry, but rather engaged in original research. Please make your case on Talk if you disagree. Also, please be mindful of the Three-revert rule, which you are close to violating. TewfikTalk 17:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Adding the same information multiple times is the same as reverting - see the Three-revert rule for more information. TewfikTalk 04:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
"reverting your own actions ("self-reverting") will not breach the rule" means that if you make an edit and then undo your own edit, it won't be counted against you. However, restoring your edit after it is removed falls under An editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24 hour period. TewfikTalk 04:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Palestinian people

See Talk:Palestinian people at the bottom. We are discussing your additions. Slow and steady and calm is the best approach on Wikipedia. --64.230.120.196 19:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoroaster

Please don't add defamatory nonsense to the Zoroaster page. This may be considered vandalism. Please discuss proposed changes on the talk page. Thanks. The Behnam 20:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Beit Or 07:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC) some one probably you who is reverting my edits I reverted no body's edit other than their edit by reverting my edit to some one's else edit. Hence the warning goes to that person. I am going to complain to administrators for cutting my new referenced contributions whole sale after I worked hard on them. By the way I never cut any body's edit I just ADDED, The people who reverted my edits have no right of doing so.

Sincerely

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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! HagermanBot 08:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gog and Magog

Anon, I think the tensions on the Gog and Magog page have heated up well past the point that a rational discussion is likely. Your edits have been reverted, not because they are untrue (they may be, but that's a moot point), but for a variety of other reasons. First and formost, your additions seem to be largely original research on your part, which is not allowed at Wikipedia. Second, part of the Neutral point of view policy deals with undue weight - though your edits have not disrupted other sections of the article, you have greatly expanded the coverage of one particular viewpoint of dubious importance. The problem with this is you haven't made a good case for your viewpoint being particularly prominent. You quote Thomson and some news articles, but you haven't demonstrated that the belief is widespread enough to include in the article. Finally, as you have said, your English is not good - your additions reflect this. They are not written to the standards other users expect in a good Wikipedia article, and are more likely to be deleted because of this. And do keep in mind the 3 revert rule - it doesn't matter who is correct, anyone who reverts 4 times in 24 hours (except under a very few certain circumstances) is breaking the rule and can be blocked for it.

Now, if I were you I'd refrain from editing the article itself and return to the talk page. Be civil and do not insult other editors. Also avoid claiming your idea is correct- Wikipedia funtions more on notability, verifiability consensus. Then, make your case that a significant minority believes the idea - quoting historians and genetic studys won't help you there. What you must do is demonstrate that enough people believe the idea that it should be included in the article. And no, just claiming "most Muslims" or even "some Muslims" believe it is not good enough. You need sources to demonstrate that. If you continue to respond the way you have been, people will think you are just a troll trying to stir up trouble.--Cúchullain t/c 05:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding link to "La Merica" in Sinclair article

Would you please stop trying to wiki-link the words "La Merica" at the article on Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney‎. There is no article on La Merica to link to... any link to "La Merica" redirects the reader back to Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney‎. It is pointless to link to an article that redirects back to the article you are adding the link to. It's called a circular link, and is against wiki usage. Also... you might want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Many of the citations you are providing are not reliable under that guideline and can be removed. Thanks. Blueboar 01:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/1/2E/User_talk%7E71.220.89.177.html"