User talk:RS101

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, RS101, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style


 * I'm an administrator. Nevertheless, my opinion doesn't carry any more weight than anybody else's. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason or "point of view" that caused you (follow up after another user by name "nableezy") and removed the following?

--

Endorsement
The National Review has highly recommended Israel National News as an objective source for news, an alternative to the predominantly biased left media in Israel.

Books
It's widely cited in books,         even John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt in their notorious book, highly critical of Israel, have quoted IsraelNationalNews.com.

Media
Among media outlets quoting Israel National News, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Washington Times  The Huffington Post, and Foxnews. RS101 (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As I explained in my edit summary and on the article's Talk page, I reverted because it's original research. In order to write about how widely quoted Arutz 7 is, you need to cite secondary sources. Instead, you've cited ten books that quote Arutz 7, which are primary sources.
 * Who decides that ten books makes Arutz 7 "widely cited in books"? Why ten and not 25 or 250? That's why we rely on secondary sources, so we can attribute the opinion. "According to XXX, Arutz Sheva is highly regarded and widely cited."
 * I hope that makes sense. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No one said "highly regarded." Can you point to me that text? This sounds like the argument that previous user (N.) before you - made, exaggerating my words in order to discredit it? The only argument you might have is to alter the word "widely" into "many times" or the like. I hope you checked the text before following the other user's argumnent. I hope that clarifies things.RS101 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to discredit your argument. What we write in the article is based on what the sources say, and I was giving that as an example. If they say Arutz 7 is "highly regarded", that would be included. If not, we wouldn't write that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I ask you again, who said "highly regarded."???RS101 (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

DTR
Please read WP:DTR. Thanks.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And WP:TTR. Both are essays, not policies. Marokwitz (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

 * While I agree with your comment, I am sick of the attitude shown by certain editors on that page trying to push an agenda. I think I will take a break from editing there - I'm just not enjoying it academically. Feel free to correct these issues. Marokwitz (talk) 06:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Is A7 an RS?
The information you have posted an others have removed might be important here: Reliable sources/Noticeboard --Shuki (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Independent editing
RS101: I notice that you have expressed similar arguments, in a similar manner as several other editors in the article Racism and ethnic discrimination in Israel. I assume good faith, and presume that you have no connection with them, nor any communication with them outside normal WP channels. For your information you may want to refer to the Meat puppet policy, which applies when there are several new user accounts created at about the same time, and all expressing similar arguments on a single article. Of course, there is nothing wrong with collaborating with other editors via their user Talk pages, as long as it is transparent and in good faith. As I said, I'm not suggesting that you've done anything amiss, I just wanted to draw your attention to that policy. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First off you can communicate with other editors through email outside of Wikipedia, you can meet them in person even, you do not need to be transparent and let everyone see what you think. You can collaborate all you want. Second- Noleander thinks if there's a consensus or majority against him it must be a conspiracy, nooooo its because more people disagree with him than agree with him. Third- Dont listen to Noleander. RS101 keep up the good work. Now I'd love to see someone go and accuse me of being someone's meatpuppet.Camelbinky (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course editors are free do meet and talk outside WP, but discussions related to conensus-building are discouraged. From WP:Consensus:  "Discussions on other websites, web forums, IRC, by email, or otherwise off the project are generally discouraged. They are not taken into account when determining consensus "on-wiki", and may generate suspicion and mistrust if they are discovered. While there is an occasional need for privacy on some issues, most Wikipedia-related discussions should be held on Wikipedia where they can be viewed by all participants."  --Noleander (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Camelbinky, you make sense!RS101 (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
Please read the WP:Disruptive editing guideline. When engaging in dialog in Talk pages, please make an effort to respond to other editors questions, and move the dialog forward towards consensus. See WP:Consensus for details. You've been referred to these policies several times, and you don't quite seem to get it. Also see WP:ICAN'THEARYOU. I will submit an ANI if you persist in disruptive editing. --Noleander (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cracking the Quran Code
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cracking the Quran Code. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)