User talk:Firstamend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 October 2007 2 RE: why did you delete my improvements to Menachem Begin article? 3 Re: "Censorpedia" 4 Personal attacks 5 Speedy deletion of Warwick apartments

[edit] October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Binational solution, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. AFUSCO 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Menachem Begin. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Rami R 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: why did you delete my improvements to Menachem Begin article?

Did you even bother to look at the edit history before making your baseless accusations against me? I didn't delete your "improvements", I undid your blanking of the page. If you're going to accuse someone of something you best be capable of backing-up your claims. I refer you to Wikipedia:Assume good faith (which in this context means: check that you didn't screw up before accusing others) and Help:Page history (so you'll know how to check that). Rami R 15:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "Censorpedia"

Hey, I caught your talk page message to PR and I thought I'd rudely but in offer my suggestions.

First of all, Wikipedia is written to accommodate all points of view, even highly distasteful ones, as long as they are held by a reasonably large number of people. What you wrote about Deir Yassin in Begin's biography was true; I could have written those words myself. But I wouldn't have put them on Wikipedia, because they were not written from a neutral point of view and they were improperly sourced.

For instance, you made the statement that Begin's forces "descended on the village and systematically set about to slaughter its people", and you sourced it to Benny Morris. But Morris actually says, "Combatants and noncombatants were gunned down in the course of the house-to-house fighting, and, subsequently, after the battle, groups of prisoners and noncombatants were killed in separate, sporadic acts of frenzy and revenge in different parts of the village and outside of Deir Yassin. The remaining villagers were then expelled. But this was no Srebrenica." Now you may think, as I do, that Morris has a tendency towards apologetics and tends to choose the most interpretation of events which is most favorable to Zionism in almost every case. But that doesn't mean you can put words in his mouth. On Wikipedia we call that original research and it's severely frowned upon.

Now, there are reasonable objections to these policies, to be sure. They require us to defer to the opinions of racists, war criminals, lunatics, etc - as long as those views are endorsed by some segment of broad world opinion. However, they are indispensable for the project of writing a general-purpose encyclopedia. Insofar as friends of the Palestinian cause are a minority here, they actually serve on balance more to protect us than to censor us.

I would suggest that you step back, take a short break from editing, and review our core content policies. If you conclude that your edits really are in conformance with those policies, then we do have dispute resolution mechanisms available - that's probably a better course of action than conferencing off-wiki with sympathetic editors, which may open you to allegations of manipulative or sneaky behavior. Unfortunately, "pro-Palestine" editors here seem to be held to a higher standard than "pro-Israel" ones, but making constant allegations of persecution or censorship is likely to turn people off, even if there is a valid point behind them. Complaining loudly that one's views are being censored, or that a cabal is in operation, tend to be signs of disruptive editors.

Anyway, this is becoming more of an essay than a talk page note, so I'll get off my soapbox. I do hope you take this as sympathetic, constructive criticism, which is how it's intended. Thanks for your time. <eleland/talkedits> 16:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: For those users who have decided to make it available, there is an "E-Mail this User" link on the left-hand toolbox when you're on their user page. See Wikipedia:Emailing users.<eleland/talkedits> 03:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Hello. Please read Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks and try and restrict your comments to content, and not editors, as you have done so here. Thank you. -- Avi 05:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Warwick apartments

A tag has been placed on Warwick apartments requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jfire (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)