User talk:Froy1100

Welcome!

Hello, Froy1100, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Haemo (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Zeitgeist, the Movie, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Haemo (talk) 04:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Your additions have been raised at the WP:BLPN please discuss the issue there, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dalal Mughrabi, 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. Please do not remove rs supported material, as well as refs, as you have here. Many thanks. Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the issue in talk. You can put the claims about her definition as "terrorist" in a separated segment, not in the initial explanation, where it denotes a clear POV. She has also been referred as a "heroine" o a "martyr". We are not going to start placing all the labels that have been placed on her in the introduction just because they are referenced. Let's be sensible.Froy1100 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the guideline calls for it to be explained as it was (which you deleted). The other option is to use it without explanation. We go with the RSs -- that is the typical description of her in them. BTW, you seem familiar. Have you edited under another name or IP? --Epeefleche (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, as long as you define her first as a "Palestinian militant" is fine with me. I have better things to do with my time. In any case, I don't find it entirely appropriate, since all other articles about "terrorists" don't have this kind of introduction, stating that they have been referred as such, even if there are plenty of references about it.Froy1100 (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But for some possibly POV-driven comments, we could dispense with all the footnotes and just go with the predominant RS usage. Which is terrorist. And then mention that some call her a hero, etc. We can do the same with various such people, including bin Laden. Most terrorists are likely considered heroes by some group, even if non-RS, or fringe.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even with Bin Laden, if you read his article, it doesn't mention the word terrorist in the introductory section even once. According to it "Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden is a member of the prominent Saudi bin Laden family and the founding leader of the militant Islamist organization al-Qaeda, best known for the September 11 attacks on the United States and numerous other mass-casualty attacks against civilian targets." Do you think there are no references about him being called a terrorist?? Why does Mughrabi have to be defined as a terrorist in any way in the introductory section if this is clearly not the normal practice in Wikipedia? It just doesn't make sense.Froy1100 (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Ïvana (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]