User talk:AdvaitNirukta

blah

al-Durrah

Hi Advait, I'd appreciate it you wouldn't change the first sentence. The article is currently undergoing a review, and this lead has been agreed. The link between the rioting and the Sharon visit is contentious and it's not the subject of the article, so we can't lead with it. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SlimVirgin, well, I'd like to make some changes in the article, which contains some inacurracies and is badly sourced. The sentence I changed poses no problem, the relation between the rioting and Sharon's visit is easily sourced, and is completely related to the incident.AdvaitNirukta (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advait, the article has to be completely neutral, as it's currently being reviewed for featured-article status. It has to be neutral and well-written. The sentence you added wasn't. The Israelis and the Mitchell Report contested that Sharon's visit was the cause of what happened, and it's anyway not related to the shooting. I'd appreciate it you wouldn't make changes at this point, while the reviewers are reading it. I can let you know when that process is over, if you like. If you can see any factual inaccuracies, I'd appreciate it if you could list them for me. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but the relation with Sharon is sourced many times, for instance by a source I will put in the article. Please don't remove it. I have changes to make to this article, please postpone the review. Thanks. AdvaitNirukta (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it has been disputed, so you cannot add it as fact in the first sentence of the lead. I'd appreciate it if you could say what your previous account(s) are too. I'm researching and writing this intensely at the moment, and I can't do that if you're going to revert from under me, and add things that don't mean anything. There is no such word in English as "controversed," for example, at least not as you used it. Also, the Duriel/Shahaf involvement in Rabin has been disputed, so I removed it until I can check further. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the "controversed", english is not my mother language. But I gave a valid ref about it. And the article is partial, as it lacls good and neutral references as I will show you. Also, the intro has to be overhauled completely, because it misses a very important point: that the "controversy" iss emanating from very few people, and that 99% people are in favor of Enderlin. I know this case very well. If you will, I will work WP/RS sources for you and the article. Thanks. AdvaitNirukta (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting into the content issue, but there is a certain structure to the article that needs to either be challenged in its entirety, or respected in the detail. The new content you are creating doesn't belong in the summary, and it isn't even clear where it belongs in the overall article. Since you are new to WP, I would highly recommend that you practice editing something more straightforward before you wade into this. Leifern (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Advait, as you're reverting a lot, I need to warn you about our 3RR policy. That says we may not revert, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours. Otherwise, we may be reported and blocked from editing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we go to the article's talk page and talk about this with everyone ? I do say that the article is missing important facts and sources. Thanks. AdvaitNirukta (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abusing multiple accounts

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AdvaitNirukta (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I just wanted to edit under a different login for the al Dura case. I don't mean edit-warring, I have new and interesting WP:RS to bring to the article. I promis not to edit war. Thanks. AdvaitNirukta (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not explain why you edited Muhammad al-Durrah incident with both accounts, in a manner that constitutes an abuse of multiple accounts; and it does not address your future conduct. Sandstein 18:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.