User talk:Knowitall369

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your work on Israeli animal spy conspiracy theories (or whatever the article is called now). I hope you like the place and decide to make more contributions. 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. Again, welcome! Qrsdogg (talk) 14:45, 12 January 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


 * Thanks! Knowitall369 (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP issues on Greta Berlin
I'd rather not take this to BLP noticeboard, so please explain why your using non WP:RS sources for a BLP is NOT against policy at the talk page. CarolMooreDC 02:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've discussed this at the Talk page there. I'll just add: It would probably be better in the future to take this first to the Talk page before making substantive deletions on claimed WP:BLP grounds. Also, a different tone would be appreciated; you'll excuse me if I took you to be a wee bit patronizing. Knowitall369 (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Your recent editing history at Greta Berlin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, but in the interest of avoiding dispute, I will take a 24 hour rest. I will also urge you to read the Talk page before you engage in further heavy-handed chopping of the entry itself. Knowitall369 (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A-Rod
Just a heads up, A-Rod isn't officially retired. He was released and is now a free agent but is not retired. Taffe316 (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Knowitall369 (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hayes
In my experience, when editors overreach, and try to put too much negative material into a biography of a living person, the result is often that every last word of it gets wiped clean. This can usually be avoided by being more circumspect. Your call. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not emotionally attached here; I think it's relevant information to the brouhaha, but am happy to defer to your judgment. I return the call to you. Knowitall369 (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you can find any source that Wikipedia considers to be reliable (WP:RS) that alludes to or in any other way mentions or refers to the material in question from FPM, then the FPM stuff can remain with an added footnote to the reliable source. Otherwise, I think just citing FPM alone is not going to work out, both because of the lack of a mainstream reliable source, and also because this stuff is now taking up such a huge percentage of the BLP (see WP:Undue weight).Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the article in which author X alleges Y can fail to be a reliable source for the fact that X alleges Y. I can see how you can argue that the article is not a reliable source for Y. But you couldn't possibly find a more reliable source for the fact that X alleges Y (WP:BIASED). But, as I said, I have no particular investment here. Do as you think best.Knowitall369 (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

February 2017


A page you created has been nominated for deletion as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please explain to me why you think the page "attacks, threatens or disparages." It is a neutral and well-sourced page about a notable figure, whose fame is primarily in connection with an ongoing murder investigation. If you feel something in particular "attacks, threatens or disparages," please remove it. The decision to remove the entire page is inexplicable. Knowitall369 (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the only threat I can see in connection with the page is your threat to block me from editing. Knowitall369 (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * You only get blocked if you continue to create attack pages. So I suggest you stop creating these types of pages. As an occasion, your article has been tagged for being too libelious/harassing. 2600:1:B141:D50B:9D59:CA56:5048:1B1C (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm truly sorry that you perceived the Twinkle notification I left you as a threat. It's understandable that you might see it as such, though I'm sure it's meant to be only a warning. As far as I can remember, I've never tagged a page as G10 before, and so wasn't aware of what the notification would look like. Please accept my apologies.
 * I see that you also posted on my talk-page. Since you posted at the top rather the bottom of the page, I missed that. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles Adelson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Adelson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Charles Adelson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Wendi Adelson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wendi Adelson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Wendi Adelson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - GB fan 11:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

POV changes not supported by sources in Quds Day + Hassan Salama
Hello. User SpidErxD made a series of changes (without previous discussion) which are not supported by given sources. For example, he replaced "oppose Zionism and Israel's existence" for "Zionist Regime's existence" (later changed by Nableezy for simply "oppose Zionism and Israel") despite the BBC clearly says:

"The idea behind Jerusalem Day rallies was to gather all fasting Muslims every year on the last Friday of Ramadan to show their opposition to the existence of Israel."

Another example. He changed the original "voicing anti-Semitic attacks" for "anti-zionist attacks" despite Katajun Amirpur says:

"One could easily come to the conclusion that anti-Semitism and a hostile attitude towards Jews are deeply rooted in Iranian society."

Later he made a series of changes to assert the fact that only "Zionist organizations" protest against Quds Day, which is not the case. Many Jewish and non-Jewish organizations and politicians expressed their rejection as well. Would you mind taking a look at those recent changes? Also you may want to take a look at this strange POV redaction. Thanks.--181.110.134.245 (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

"They're fighting to destroy Israel, and their fight is seasoned with Jew-hatred"
This is a BLP smear: ; please self-revert. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. "BLP smear" is not a term with which I am familiar. The comment you deleted was the negative opinion of a journalist that immediately follows the positive opinion of a different journalist about a key controversy concerning the subject of the entry. It seems to me that NPOV forbids me from retaining the positive one and deleting the negative one simply because the latter is critical.Knowitall369 (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

American politics 2 discretionary sanctions notification
Aquillion (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)