User talk:MidEastSpecialist

Regarding your edit to If Americans Knew:

Your recent edit to If Americans Knew (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a shared IP address to add email addresses, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, or forum links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 03:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS Archives

Do not edit archives again or change other people's post. If you do, you'll be blocked for vandalism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

In case you're a new editor and unfamiliar with our policies, please review the 3RR rule. This states that we must not revert another editor's work, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours; if we do, we may be blocked from editing. Please review the policy carefully to make sure you understand it. You may also want to read our core content policies: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3RR vio

As per above, you are blocked from editing WP for 24 hours.--CSTAR 19:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Block

Pro-Israel individuals continue to remove accurate information about If Americans Knew and replace it with information that is false, unsubstantiated, and that has been refuted on the discussion page. In addition, they continue to post websites that contain malicious and fraudulent material. Now I have been blocked from correcting their fabrications. This is highly disturbing.

Does the wikipedia process mean that anyone with an agenda can disrupt the whole process? It seems to me that this makes wikipedia an extremely unreliable resource and ripe for those with a particular agenda to take over -- all they need is unlimited time for malicious "editing" (ie hacking) and a tag-team approach.

I hope I'm wrong, but so far this is my experience.

The entry needs to be returned to the latest version by Nagler, and then it needs to be protected.

- MidEastSpecialist

Sneaky Vandalism

I've just looked into Wikipedia processes further (I'm new to all this) and it appears that the people who continue to revert the If Americans Knew entry to information that has been shown to be false are guilty of what is called "sneaky vandalim." Similarly, inserting inaccurate, inappropriate websites that have been removed is also vandalism.

I hope that these actions can be stopped.

Vanity articles/If America Knew

Please be advised that articles on organizations simply can't be promotional pieces for the articles themselves. Such articles are generally put up for deletion unless a serious effort is made to make them NPOV. Your assertion that views that you disagree with are "fraudulent," "false," etc., or that you have "shown" such by merely saying so, is not helpful. --Leifern 17:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If America Knew

You are in danger of violating the Three revert rule on this article. Catchpole 18:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfC

Please read the guidelines on requests for comments. You should not ask for "help", but describe the problem objectively: i.e "There is an ongoing content dispute on whether certain sources can be used and the overall tone of the article". Otherwise the most likely outcome is that your request would be ignored. Regards, Asterion^talk 19:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- I'll remember this in the future. I assume I should now repost my request, using the phraseology you describe? -MidEastSpecialist 03:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article from a distant perspective. I would suggest you all discuss any amends in the talk page. And please do not edit war. Regards, Asterion^talk 12:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which "talk page" do you mean? Mine, yours, or the If Americans Knew discussion page?

Your "distant" rewrite contains 13 lines under Criticism and 2 lines under Reactions. How do you justify this?

It also contains external links that contain inaccurate statements. How do you justify including these?

It leaves out the program about If Americans Knew by Alternate Focus, an independent organization based in San Diego. Why is this omitted?

This is supposed to be an entry about If Americans Knew. Instead it is largely about CAMERA and other Zionist organizations and their false allegations about If Americans Knew and Israel-Palestine. Regards, MidEastExpert 00:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I missed your response. As a rule of thumb, I try to conduct all discussion about articles on the talk page of that article. Asterion^talk 21:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Weir

Hello and greetings! I'm here about your edits to Alison Weir. While I understand your desire to write an article about the American activist, it is not standard Wikipedia policy to discuss two people with the same name in one article. Therefore, I would recommend that your create a separate article at Alison Weir (activist) or something of that nature, and put the content you added to the other article there. This may involve moving the main article to Alison Weir (writer) or something like that; I'm really not sure what standard procedure is. For directions on how to start a new page, and help doing so, see Help:Starting a new page. Cheers! TysK 03:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]