User talk:Drmikeh49

Welcome to Wikipedia!
need guidance for responding to an edit that I feel was inappropriately reverted. I edited the Jewish Voice for Peace page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Voice_for_Peace twice yesterday, both edits were quickly reverted by Sean Hoyland. I understand the reasoning behind reverting the first edit which had to do with sourcing (though I fully expect that it will also be reverted once there is an accepted secondary source, but that's another story). But the second edit (removing "Jewish" from the definition of the group, based on their own website statements) was reverted without comment, explanation or an entry on the Talk page for the article on which I started a new heading just on that one particular point. I want to make my edit stick but assume that it will just continue to be reverted. What is my recourse? Drmikeh49 (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The only way to find out why you got reverted is, oftentimes, by asking the editor who reverted you. If you can't seem to compromise, perhaps you can get a third opinion, which is one way to resolve disputes. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @  21:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome
I want to welcome you and suggest that indeed you invest some time in learning the policies and how this place works. policvies such as WP:UNDUE are sometimes used by those who claims some facts need to be removed...so make sure they don't make UNDUE use of that policy - it's scope is actuallt very narrow. Zeq (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

actually YNETNEWS.com is a very good source on the subject. they quote news wires and also have a very good correspondent Ali Wakad (Waked/) who covers gaza. Do good searches on the issue google gaza YMCA or Gaza book store  (gaza bookstore),  gaza charstian school etc... you will find sources that have published on the subject. There are many good sources just avoid sources with clear bias or sources such as blog. read the policies WP:RS and WP:V. Zeq (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm was changed by Drmikeh49 (u) (t) deleting 12218 characters on 2008-09-12T06:07:15+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 06:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Clean break
Ah...I had to check to see what article you were talking about. If you made a legit edit and I reverted it, I sincerely apologize. I just saw the removal of seemingly well sourced, content coupled with no edit summary and thought it was vandalism (that's usually the case). I always assume good faith, but when you're doing recent changes patrolling, sometimes a few constructive edits get mistaken for vandalism. Thank you for bringing the mistake to my attention. :) Pinkadelica (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. You were not rude (a rarity around here!) which I why I answered you quickly. I didn't think you were accusing me of bad faith, I just wanted to make sure you knew why I reverted you and that isn't wasn't based on me disagreeing with the content or anything. Admittedly, I know nothing about the topic you're editing so I trust that you know what would sound biased or what needs to be removed. As an aside, if you want to avoid Cluebot reverting your edits, don't remove large amounts of content in one edit. If you remove a lot in one sitting, it triggers Cluebot to revert and warn. Try removing a few paragraphs at a time then save your edits (with an edit summary of course). Do it again until you get rid of what you want gone. Cluebot can and will keep warning you until it reports you (after four warnings) and I don't want you to get blocked, even temporarily, for constructive work. If you ever need any help here or have any questions, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Pinkadelica (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
Hello Drmikeh49. This article is now fully protected until Sept 19 because an admin got the impression that edit wars were taking place. Since I noticed your recent explanation elsewhere, I suspect there is not really an edit war, but it would help if you would add some words on the article's Talk page to clarify matters. EdJohnston (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

helpme I have made edits to a page (Hamas) that have been reverted for reasons that I believe are invalid and biased. I have substantiated my edits on the talk page for the article. The edit in question involves a factual occurence (migration of Christians from gaza since teh hamas takeover and several acts of violence against that community) and I placed this fact as a counterpoint to quoted statement by Hamas leadership about all faiths living together.

So...if I still believe that my point is both valid (it is referenced) and germane, as well as well within NPOV, how to I appeal this?
 * Discuss the issue with other editors on the talk page for that article to determine what the consensus is.  Stwalkerster  [  talk  ]  20:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Regarding this edit, (which looks fine to me apart from I think 5 should be 4), I noticed that your user name may suggest a possible connection to the subject of the article. If that is the case and you plan to make further edits related to StandWithUs, please could you read the Conflict of interest guideline so that you are aware of the community consensus on these issues. Thanks.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)