Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:39, 3 October 2010

September 2010

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Rawabi, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

hi, your edit appeared to be unsourced at first glance, looking into it now. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

reinstated your edit, sorry for the mistake. WookieInHeat (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

thank you for keeping wikipedia a neutral and objective source and not bias and based on propogandas as what others want--213.6.11.49 (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC) can you help me in taking an action against the ones who promoted the bias?. thanks--213.6.11.49 (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

hi again, thanks for messaging me on my talk page, i'd rather not get involved in the content dispute personally. i don't think the article is the place for calling the settlements illegal. it is not discussing the dispute, rather the place. but ultimately i am indifferent either way, the reference does clearly support your addition. if you would like further assistance, i would suggest taking a look at WP:DISPUTE and deciding your next move, starting a discussion on the article talk page would be a good first step. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

although i would like to add that your position doesn't seem arguable judging by the revision history of the page, consensus is against your addition as per WP:CON. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR

if you revert one more time you will break WP:3RR and be block again. i think you do not want this happen. LibiBamizrach (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

and look who is talking! u r the one who is reverting to promote bias and u r the only one who is breaking the WP:3RR--213.6.11.49 (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Per this edit, it is clear you are blindly reverting every edit solely for the sake of reverting rather than even considering their content. DMacks (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

NO, i do not blindly revert for the sake of reverting, and ur accusation is not acceptable! its a shame that u r using ur authority to shut others who do not agree with u! what wrong did i do?

@DMacks: don't u think its a double standard to block me for reverting my edits who are supported by sources and references, and keeping the one who keeps deleting my sourced and referenced edits free?

can u answer me?--213.6.11.49 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

i provided information with sources and references, and they were deleted for NO reason. can you explain that to me?--213.6.11.49 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

and why I am NOT surprised DMacks that you have failed to answer my question, which makes us doubt your role as an admin, and proves that you support a propaganda instead of supporting neutral point of view!--213.6.11.49 (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no valid question asked. You were warned what would happen if you did what you were doing, you did it, the warned action happened. You have nobody to blame but yourself, you are being held accountable for your actions. DMacks (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You failed again to answer my question.... again and again DMacks!

My question was, how come I was the only one who was blocked even though my edits were supported by sources and references, while the other one who kept on deleting them for NO objective reason, is still out there and not blocked?

any logical answer to my question DMacks? --213.6.11.49 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not block you for that specific issue. Several users have stated that. Talk-page protected to prevent further time-wasting. DMacks (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

so what was the reason DMacks? do you think other admins will still have any respect to you and your contributions when they read your answers above!--213.6.27.118 (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

213.6.11.49 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i believe that i was discriminated against and blocked for no real reason; i have done nothing wrong. i provided some information with sources and references to some pages, and they were deleted for no reason, and i was blocked for reverting them back! its a shame that some admins misuse their authority and block others who do not agree with them

Decline reason:

Please refer to our policies regarding what we call edit warring; your block has nothing to do with the contents of your edits, but rather, with your inappropriate approach to collaborative editing. --jpgordon 18:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

213.6.11.49 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i am to blame for reverting my edits that were supported by sources and references, while LibiBamizrach who kept on reverting back my edits and deleting my sources and references is free out there! why there is double standards? i still believe that i have done nothing wrong, i just reverted my edits wh were sourced and referenced while the other user kept on deleting them for NO reason!!!!!

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. Please read WP:GAB and WP:BRD before requesting unblock again. The fact that you still think you did nothing against the clearly-stated rules is quite concerning. Note that an abuse of the unblock process may result in removal of access to your talkpage for the duration of the block. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.