User talk:Wikipal11119

I have rolled back your edits because they were poorly sourced and because they are contentious and relate to living people so should be discussed on the article Talk pages first. Guy (help!) 16:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says "Use of standard rollback for any other purposes – such as reverting good-faith changes which you happen to disagree with – is likely to be considered misuse of the tool. When in doubt, use another method of reversion and supply an edit summary to explain your reasoning." Guy (help!)

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Guy (help!) 17:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wikipal11119 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

All of my direct quotes used reputable inline citations and neutral language to add widely reported information from the 2018 Al Jazeera documentary "The Lobby USA." These edits were deleted using standard rollback for making "good faith edits" which were described as "poorly sourced" despite using multiple reputable sources. Wikipal11119 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, the language you used was not in the least bit neutral. Claims of "astroturfing" and "censorship", assertions of "unsubstantiated claims" -- these are not neutral, especially in a WP:BLP. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

(edit conflict) So now let's have a talk about sourcing, our biographies of living people policy (BLP) and the like.

Electronic Intifada is not a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources).
The Nation is considered partisan and its statements should be attributed and should not be asserted as fact.
ProPublica is reliable
Haaretz is biased ion the area of Israel / Palestine and should be handled with care, with attribution for opinion pieces.
The Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs is superficially OK but likely to have a dog in the fight so should be used with caution.
WRMEA does not appear to meet our reliability criteria (see [1]).
Al Jazeera generally is reliable.
al-shabaka.org is an unknown, you should seek clarification on this. It is clearly activist.
The Forward is also clearly partisan.
Open Hillel is not a reliable source.

So now what you do is you use your Sandbox (the link is above) and write up a revised version for the first article, say Israel on Campus Coalition, that uses only sources that are considered reliable (the green box in https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ is a good guide) and which only reflects, but does not draw conclusions from, those sources. Then you can discuss it on the article's Talk page and see what other editors think.

Oh, and you also need one of these:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

All clear now? Guy (help!) 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (help!) 20:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]