User talk:Betacrucis

Welcome

Hello Betacrucis and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

neutrality tag in gaza war article

Hey betacrucis, while I agree that the neutrality of the article is a subject of dispute, it isn't the only thing under discussion as problematic. Hence the all-inclusive tag {{activediscuss}} is used (it was put in place by another editor at the beginning of the conflict as a substitute to the POV tag). As you can see, the first item in "activediscuss" is precisely neutrality, and it does the same categorization as {{pov}}. Your addition of the POV tag is hence redundant and not really necessary.

I have given this rationale in the talk page recently, but have given it before too, and is generally accepted in the community as an alternative to tag-farming. Please refrain from restoring the tag, as it does nothing to help advance the quality of the article, but does detract from the goal of doing encyclopedic editing. Thank you.--Cerejota (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Please refrain from unilateral controversial edits to the 2008–2009_Israel–Gaza_conflict page. Your removal of much of the Background section is particularly problematic as this has been discussed in detail on the Talk page. Check archives please. RomaC (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of pictures from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict

Please do not remove the pictures of casualties from this page as you did here. There has been extensive discussion regarding the inclusion of these pictures in the archives. Please do not remove them again without first seeking a consensus on the talk page. Continued removal of these pictures without doing so will be regarded by me as vandalism. (See WP:VANDAL). Also, in the future, if you remove pictures, please indicate that you have done so in your edit summary. Thanks. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Betacrucis. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Format at Talk:History of the Jews in Australia

Hey, You're doing a great job at the Gaza conflict article. I noticed you created a new page - Talk:History of the Jews in Australia/Comments, which is unnecessary. Comments about the article belong at Talk:History of the Jews in Australia. I copy and pasted your comment to the correct page and I'll get that sub-talkpage deleted. Take care, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry investigation

I have initiated an investigation into whether you are possibly a sockpuppet due to your recent removal of images from 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict and the fact that doing so fits a pattern with a previously blocked editor User:Tundrabuggy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case has been started at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Betacrusis.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good news. You have been found not to be a sockpuppet of Tundrabuggy. Please accept my apologies for putting you through this process. I hope that this experience does not sour your view of wikipedia.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a ferfy but I appreciate the goodwill gesture. I am a new but fair editor and would like to work with, not against, the other eds. Betacrucis (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beta, I am sorry that you have had to go through this. I would have got in touch with you earlier (just to touch bases) but the investigation was over before I got out of bed. All I can say is that "great minds think alike." I also have some research that demonstrates that the pictures added were added without "consensus" but you had best be careful not to be seen as "edit-warring" or "disruptive" because you will end up in a wiki-court forum, blocked and banned before you are out of bed in the morning, lol. Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hope this nasty accusation and experience will not discourage you from editing Wikiepdia. Trust me, there are good guys and gals here as well. Best, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Brew fails to mention is that I am the best of the best guys and gals... :D--Cerejota (talk) 06:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

carriage return

Hello, instead of using the carriage return in the middle of your comments you can use <br> to provide a line break. <br> keeps your indent, so if you want to further indent a section of a comment, for example quoting a large block of text, you will still need to use carriage return and the correct number of : for the indent. But when you want to keep your indent <br> is the way to go. Nableezy (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]