User talk:WiPhi

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, WiPhi, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gurt Posh (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hi WiPhi, and welcome to Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure you are aware that there is currently a 1 revision rule for all articles related to Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That means you may not revert any such article more than once in a 24 hour period. Happy editng. All Rows4 (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA

An editor has suggested on my talk page that I warn you of the discretionary sanctions under the WP:ARBPIA case. In my opinion, some of your edits seem to be adding a personal point of view to articles. This is not allowable under our rules; our material must reflect what reliable sources have published, and must not be a transmission of the editor's own POV. I think I'll wait a few more hours to see if you appear to be listening to any feedback. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

diplomacy

The 'normal' = TV-talk definition of diplomacy is saying "Nice doggy" whilst reaching for a stick. I know a real diplomat whose definition is transmitting the message "Go to hell," whilst convincing the 'target' that s/he would enjoy the trip. Since wikileaks, we know that certain leading regimes' diplomats are outright liars mostly intent on deceiving their 'targets' in order to rip them off.

My 1st message: I'm not here to teach you your business, but I nevertheless have something to say to you. Whether you listen and what you make of it is, as usual, totally up to you. Aside: Given the "1000 pens" arrayed against this single truth&justice seeker, I'm unlikely to succeed in competing against them all. Doesn't mean I won't try.

More in sorrow than in anger (simmering rage suppressed).

We know who the black-hats are, and how they operate.

All one needs to know is already at Sean.hoyland-talk, All_Rows4-talk & EdJohnston-talk.

Yesterday was the (N.H.) shortest day, but also for my definitive encounter with this wiki.

Burke: "The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing" - said to be one of the most quoted sayings on the internet.

Comment: Speaks volumes.

My 2nd message: We are all in this together; survival will depend on working together: Cooperation is to be preferred instead of confrontation.

We can see that the black-hats prefer confrontation on their way to murdering for spoil, as in other branches, with finance to the fore.

Note: One person's POV-pushing is another's attempt at eliminating lies(&injustice), as in 'civil war' is not an appropriate term for 'aggressive alien invasion,' and although the latter may carry 'emotional baggage' for some, terms should best approximate reality, as 'Zionist theft of Palestinian land' does. Proof: A fair exchange is no robbery; Palestinians have generally had their land/property alienated by anything but fair (= legal, moral) means.

The black-hats' modus operandi necessarily includes lying, but no lie-containing reference can be reliable, as I attempted to point out by my Plan_Dalet and Deir_Yassin edits. Of course those articles are key, because it's there that certain crimes are most visible. Enter the murdering burglar / home invasion analogue; stolen property must revest.

All those who do not resist evil to the best of their ability make themselves almost as guilty as the prime-perpetrators, be those non-resistors accessories (by active assistance), apologists (by (im)moral assistance) or do-nothings (by the sin of omission, see Burke).

To each his own, and to the devil with all black-hats & their helpers.

My conclusion: IF the facts cannot be determined THEN it is all opinion (= POV), and the task becomes "which particular POV;" it pays to be clever about this choice - because the wrong choice will sink this wiki, likewise with the whole world threatened with being sunk along the same lines.

Too dramatic? I don't think so (massive understatement.)

My end-message: Just as we know who the black-hats are, we know why they lie, and why the corrupt & venal MSM transmits and *actively assists* those lies. Not if, but it sadly seems, when this wiki includes those same lies, this wiki not only fails to differentiate, it simply cannot liberate. Looks like the web - our chance to escape the filthy black-hat lies - is wasted on wikipedia.org/

Shame.
wiφ 15:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC) WiPhi

RULFT?

References:
Verifiability Verifiability,_not_truth Truth The_Truth Reliable_sources

Abbreviations:
RULFT - Are you looking for trouble
IDWT - I don't want trouble
FIW - Freedom - I won't
(The last, FIW, is included for historical reasons.)

IMHO, Shrike is looking for trouble.

Evidence;
21 December 2011‎:

14:15, Sean.hoyland Undid my Deir_Yassin_massacre edit.

15:44, me: I'm assuming that if I adequately document and resubmit my edit - making it much longer - you will leave it alone.
regards, wiφ (at Sean.hoyland-talk)

15:49, All_Rows4 Undid my Plan_Dalet edit.

15:53, All_Rows4: ... you may not revert any such article more than once in a 24 hour period. (= 1RR, this talk)

16:51, me: As if I would persist in the face of yours or any other's rejection.
regards, wiφ (at All_Rows4-talk)

17:34, Shrike: Hello I think the user:WiPhi should be warned about WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions becouse of this two push poving edits [35] and [36].--(at EdJohnston-talk)

18:10, EdJohnston: His claim is that you are an obvious point-of-view pusher. ... (this talk)

18:10, EdJohnston: In my opinion, some of your edits seem to be adding a personal point of view ... (ibid., revising 1st try.)

18:21, Shrike: I ask you to to correct yourself.I didn't say that he is obvious POV pusher ... (at EdJohnston-talk)

Comment: Ah, but that's *exactly* what s/he said; Shrike contradicts him/herself.

22:10, Shrike: I think what user:FisherQueen have wrote here relevant to WiPhi only change Palestinians to Zionists.--(at Sean.hoyland-talk)

22 December 2011:

07:49, Shrike updates Plan_Dalet with an *opinion* attributed to Benny Morris.

Discussion: User Shrike is an obvious candidate for conflict of interest; user comes from Israel, user is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, user is a recent changes patroller *and* user edits articles, pushing some POV attributed to a possibly partisan source: Benny Morris (Hebrew: בני מוריס‎‎; born 8 December 1948 in Ein HaHoresh, Israel)). Morris himself could not have been present during Plan_Dalet; we enter a loop of sources derived from sources, who knows who accurately reports what?
18:50, Shrike: "you should be aware that your are editing in very problematic area and given an official warning because of your edits."--(at EdJohnston-talk)

Final note: All of Shrike's actions vis-à-vis wiφ came looong after the edits were undone, after exchanges with both undo-ers, and all but the 1st after I had indicated that I acknowledged the 1RR and wasn't at all interested in challenging the process.

PS I see that Shrike is also a member of the Welcoming Committee. Thnx; I already feel right at home.
wiφ 10:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC) WiPhi

Notice of WP:ARBPIA

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

When I was first asked to notify you, I decided to wait to see if you were listening to any of the feedback. Your talk page does not suggest that you grasp the problem, so I'm leaving you the usual warning of possible sanctions. You are not restricted as of now, but if you show any evidence of POV-pushing on articles about the Arab-Israeli conflict (such as more edits like this one) either on articles or talk pages, you are eligible for sanctions, which may include blocks or topic bans. If you want to work on articles that are unrelated to the conflict you should be OK. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three strikes - and you're out?

EdJohnston: "Your talk page does not suggest that you grasp the problem" ...

My every action after discovering these words: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—" *should* have informed any reader that I did indeed fully understood 'the problem' (and its implications.)

Obviously, I'm failing to get my message across OR my message is as unwelcome as unwanted.

Instead of waving your big sticks at me from the (TV-talk) 'get go' (17:34, 21 December 2011), you may have achieved a better result by recalling that one may catch more flies with honey as compared to vinegar. Of course, that assumes that the result achieved, namely leaving me under the mortal threat of excommunication, is not optimal (from WP's POV). As a favour, perhaps someone could explain why a user embedded in one side of a conflict may 'blow the whistle' in the 1st place, then push an opinion favouring that same side, derived from a so-called authority also similarly embedded - is somehow OK. Whilst waiting (could be a looong wait), I'll presume the answer: That's WP's system (and simultaneously illustrating how a WP consensus may be reached).

As usual when encountering such 'static' (= signal swamped by noise), one recalls the saying: 'One can't fight City Hall.' My search for truth and justice will go on - merely not so much 'in here.' One +ve is that the steps to purgatory are all available, even if a bit hard for a newbie to locate.
wiφ 09:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC) WiPhi