User talk:Fz62

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Fz62, 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: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Marokwitz (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Manual of Style

September 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Palestinian Media Watch, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Marokwitz (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC) u have offered help, please replace this template with I don't understand why my changes would amount to 'original research'. I believe it is important factual data based on primary reliable sources. Fz62 (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You combined two published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say - specifically, that PMW is sponsored by a criminal. Please read WP:SYNTH. You need a single source saying that. Furthermore, primary sources should not be used for claims about living people. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. " See WP:BLPPRIMARY. If it is indeed an important and notable point about PMW, then it should be easy for you to find better sources. Marokwitz (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The information that the Michael Cherney Foundation funds PMW is from the Michael Cherney Foundation itself. What else is needed there? I found other sources regarding the second sentence. Do I need to quote other available sources as well? Now the paragragh is very similar to the one above, about PMW's director. Fz62 (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This does not resolve the issue with WP:SYNTH. You are still taking two sources, and combining them in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say - specifically, that PMW is sponsored by a wanted criminal. You need to have a single source saying both. The fact that somebody has donated money to PMW, and there happens to be a warrant for his arrest, is not relevant to an article about PMW unless a reliable source made this linkage. Otherwise, it is your own personal synthesis of two unrelated facts, which is a type of original research. I hope this is clear now. Marokwitz (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I am not convinced. I added two sentences. The first is about who sponsors PMW. Clearly relevant. The second gives important information about who the sponsor is, also clearly relevant. The readers can do their personal synthesis.Fz62 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I have not checked the sources, but if they say what you reckon they say then I don't see any "original research". JamesBWatson (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a synthesis of published material that advances a position. Are you familiar with WP:SYNTH? Both parts of the sentence may be reliably sourced, but here they have been combined to imply that an organization is somehow funded by crime. If this was true, then it should be easy to find a single source saying so directly. Marokwitz (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

1RR on all I/P conflict articles
Please revert yourself there are 1RR on all I/P articles as evident from talk page.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 08:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

Alert
&#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 11:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)