User talk:Owain the 1st

My Lai

You added a "merge" tag to My Lai Massacre, and added a comment on Talk:My Lai saying that you thought that My Lai should have its own article. In fact, it does--you can find it at My Lai, Vietnam (notice at the top of My Lai Massacre there's a note directing people to go there if they want info about the village itself. If you have sourced information that could improve that article, you should add it there. Did you actually mean to propose taking all of the info about the Massacre and moving it into My Lai, Vietnam? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I clicked on the link at the top of the page which said something like someone has proposed merging the my lai article with an article about the village and I disagreed with that as it should have its own page..I know it has its own page as that is the page I was on with the link at the top.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Pity the Nation

If you really think that a person can feasibly work with a batch of over 1,000 uncategorized articles in AWB by manually categorizing each and every one individually, instead of by adding {{uncat}} tags, then by all means, you're more than welcome to try it sometime. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Owain, I feel your frustration on this point, but Bearcat is right. As of this writing there are 5,768 articles that are marked as uncategorized. If you would like to help out with this rather large backlog you can go to Category:Uncategorized pages and click on "Random page in this category." It is indeed not rocket science, there's just an awful lot of it that needs doing. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough explanation.Cheers.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

1/rr

The topic is under 1/rr restrictions. Stop edit warring.Cptnono (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Owain the 1st Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Palestine - Israel articles topic warning

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Think you may have missed notice

If you have any mind to reinstate this edit at any point in the future, you should be aware that similar information already appears to be covered, albeit more briefly, at the bottom of the section where you added your contribution. It would be more appropriate to just expand that, rather than add a second paragraph on the same topic, imo. If you do so, I'd suggest you do so in a rather more concise form than your original post; that you not add all of it. Just my two cents. If you'd like to reply, please do so here; I've temporarily watchlisted this page.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I did not see that bit at the bottom of that section.Seems to cover it, I will leave it alone.Thanks for all your good work on reverting the other articles.Owain the 1st (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I took care of several, a couple of other editors did some as well. I'm glad it's sorted. I hope you won't mind if I reiterate though, that you really do need to be careful with articles related to Israel & Palestine issues. Even some biographies that relate to the conflict have a 1-revert-per-day (max) rule; you always have to look at the top of the talk page to see that. Also, it's entirely possible to be blocked even if you don't reach 3RR on a non-restricted article, for example. If someone reverts one of your edits, the next thing to do is to post to the talk page concerning the edit, and make a case for its inclusion, if the person who reverted you didn't already post on the topic there himself. It's our ubiquitous "bold, revert, discuss" model, that I imagine you've already heard about.

Anyway, multiple reverts (even if you don't hit 3 in 24, or 1 in 24) without using the talk page, to try to discuss, is a pretty sure way to get blocked, eventually. If you make the same revert on an article, every day or two for a couple of weeks without using the talk page, for example, but just once per day, that would still be viewed as blockable edit-warring by many or perhaps most admins. It really would be a good idea to read up on policy about this. For example, I've seen even very experienced editors get tripped up for ignoring, misinterpreting, or being unaware of this passage: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." Please understand that I'm not criticizing in the least, I'm just trying to help you stay out of trouble in what is, after all, one of the top two or three most contentious areas on Wikipedia. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"Israeli authorities state both have confessed"

My general response is, facts that there is no argument about, shouldn't be brought as a POV.

What bothers me very much is that at first you erased all places that mentioned that 2 Palestinians were the murderers (and you got into a war edit with Andres over it), explaining that as long as they haven't been convicted they are assumed innocent. That can be accepted, although they have confessed. But what has to be clear is that if/when they are convicted, this rule does not apply anymore, and you shouldn't try to edit something like - the Israelis have convicted 2 Palestinians (giving the impression that this is a POV, when it isn't).Editorprop (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I never erased any mention of 2 Palestinians at all get your facts right.I edited out that they did it because they have not been convicted, I put in that they were suspects or suspected of murder.See the difference? Innocent until proven guilty.As for them confessing we only have the Israeli word for that and going on their history that is not very good at all and it has not been verified by anyone else whatsoever.You obviously believe everything the Israelis tell you, I do not.They have not been convicted so that bit of your argument means absolutely nothing.btw Andres has been banned for vandalism.One more thing what you changed it to was not a fact.Owain the 1st (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Dear Owain - your personal thoughts about the Israelis are not something to be brought in an encyclopedia. If they confessed in front of the Israelis - so of course you won't find the Chinese saying they confessed or the Mexicans saying so. But as long as there is no argument about a fact, it shouldn't be brought as a POV ("so and so say that" etc.), but should be just brought as is.Editorprop (talk) 10:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Does not happen to be just my personal thoughts, happens to be a fact that no one and I mean no one apart from the Israelis are saying they have confessed, therefore it is not verified that they have confessed at all and since that is the case you cannot post that they have confessed without stating that the Israelis say they confessed.End of story really.It is not a POV it happens to be a matter of fact, the Israelis say they have confessed and that is what I posted.So I do not see what you have a problem with apart from you are an Israeli supporter who tries to big them up and put down the Palestinians.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden legality

I would like to know the reason that you have reverted my revert? All the information in that piece is sourced, there are 4 links and they cover everything in that article.So please state your reason for reverting it.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's confine discussion of article content to the relevant article talk pages. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

So you have no answer either here or there, I did not see you on the talk page.If I do not get an answer from you then I will just revert it back as there is nothing wrong with it.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll open a discussion thread there soon. In the mean time, please take a look at WP:CITE. --Anentiresleeve (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Legality

Oh, it's not removed, I just set up a main article for it Legal debate over the killing of Osama bin Laden, since this topic will obviously be important and discussed for years to come. So many stories and quotes about it already. jengod (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

OK.Sorted, good idea.Owain the 1st (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Israel Defense Forces. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Please stop accusing editors of "vandalism". Marokwitz (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

1 RR

• You have just violated the 1RR restriction in Israel Defense Forces. Please self revert now . Marokwitz (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is not a breaking the 1R rule and I will not self revert something that was well sourced and you reverted for no good reason.Please take it further as I will asking everyone to look into your behaviour.Your edit was not a good faith edit at all.Owain the 1st (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The edit was not necessarily vandalism. And then another editor agreed with the edit. If you did not technically violate 1/rr you at least violated the spirit of it. You have also failed to discuss your revert at Gaza War. I have since reverted after waiting ample time with you editing other articles. Continued disruptive reverting will result in me requesting action if Marokwitz decides not to.Cptnono (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)