User talk:Dan-Shrabi

Welcome

Hello Dan-Shrabi, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Dan-Shrabi, good luck, and have fun. --Aboutmovies (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Drew Barrymore, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Nymf _{talk to me} 17:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dan-Shrabi. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather old, but I doubt it was in error. I was sharing a computer with several other persons at the time the "sockpuppetry" occurred. The sharing has ceased.

Unsourced and unreliably sourced edits

I'm highly skeptical of your edits to Martha Rofheart and have reverted quite a large part of them. You haven't provided any source for her son's job, and even if you had, it's debatable whether it belonged into her article. For the plagiarism the only "sources" are a letter to the Times Literary Supplement, I believe, and a random blog on the internet. Those aren't reliable sources. If there are truly reliable sources for these claims, please present them; otherwise unsubstantiated rumor does not belong in an encyclopedia article. Regarding the son there are even BLP issues. Huon (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO THE FOREGOING:

      With due respect, I beg to differ. The facts remain that Martha Rofheart plagiarised A.M. Maughan's novel Harry of Monmouth, John Cowper Powys's novel Owen Glendower, and Harold F. Hutchinson's Henry V: A Biography. More sources exist than a mere "letter to the Times Literary Supplement", though that letter, dated 4th January 2008, from Professor David A Cook of the University of North Carolina, which set forth his correspondence with the Powys Estate's London agent, Pollinger Ltd, and their futile protest against author Rofheart's much more formidable publisher, is hardly unreliable. One need only the two novels and compare them; even several respected contemporary authors have noted the plagiarism. But, as Pollinger Ltd suggested in their response to Dr Cook, principles fare poorly in an exchange between a small British literary agency and a corporate publishing house with large financial resources, as happened in the matter of the Rofheart plagiarism. It should be noted that Putnam dropped Rofheart as soon as the matter was concluded.

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Operation Yiftach may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

] offensive carried out between 28 April and 23 May 1948. The objectives were to capture [[Safed]]], which the Mufti had designated as his capital for his future Arab state in western Palestine, and

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]