User talk:YankeeYiddel

July 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to International Solidarity Movement appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. -- Irn (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, YankeeYiddel, 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)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk 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!

Neutral point of view

Hi! I noticed your contributions to Amiram Goldblum, and, in that context, reviewed the contributions you've made so far to Wikipedia. I don't know whether you've noticed this or not, but nearly all of your contributions have been removed by other users for the same reason - that they are violations of either the criteria for choosing reliable sources or the neutral point of view policy. It looks like, in your eagerness to represent your political or religious position, you have accidentally broken those rules - or maybe you didn't know about them. I know you want to make useful contributions that remain as stable additions to Wikipedia; you might find it helpful to read those rules carefully, bearing them in mind when you edit. Or, if it's difficult for you to stay neutral in certain subject areas, you might decide to write about subjects you are less passionate about. Most of us have a few subjects that we avoid, just because it's hard for us to write in a neutral way, without including our own opinions and ideas (or getting angry at users who disagree with our views!) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how I was promoting my point of view, political or oterwise. The man has filed ten lawsuits in Israel. That's highly litigious. I think you are accusing me of what you must be doing.

So far, all of your edits have been removed by other users who independently thought they were not neutral enough to be appropriate for encyclopedia articles. I thought you might appreciate knowing that, so you could correct the problem and make edits that actually stay in articles. If you think I've made an edit that is inappropriately influenced by my personal opinion, please feel free to discuss it with me, either here, on my talk page, or on the article talk page. It might help you to know that I have no opinion at all on Israeli or Jewish politics or religion; it isn't a subject I think about often or am interested in. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My entries are not pro or anti Israeli or Palestinian. At issue is a professor who allowed a terrorist to come back to school in chemistry in his lab. The professor claims he had nothing to do with hsi returning but has enver renounced it or said who readmitted him Allowing a convicted terrorist back into a laboratory whre bombmaking materials were stolen from earlier ahrdly seems like political commentary. It seems those removing my comments have a political agenda to protect those who protect terrorists.

I don't think you understand - I'm not just looking at your edits this week. I'm looking at your full edit history since you joined in April. All of your edits have been reversed for violations of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable source guidelines. Except one. Even after my directing you to the neutral point of view policy and the reliable source guidelines, yesterday you made an edit which broke both of those same rules. Have you read those rules yet? Do you understand them? Can you see, after reading them, how your edits, although well-intentioned, didn't follow the rules? Are you able, and willing, to follow the rules in the future? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Macaddct1984. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Amiram Goldblum, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, MacAddct1984 ^{(talk  contribs)} 02:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Rachel Corrie. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please do not edit other contributors' talk page comments, particularly by introducing defamatory material about living people. RolandR (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]