User talk:Angelsi 1989

September 2016

Hello, I'm Fedelis4198. I noticed that you made a change to an article, History of the Jews in France, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DarthVader (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will be blocked

Angelsi 1989, until you have 30 days and 500 edits, you are not permitted to edit in the Arab-Israeli area. Period. Although I agree with you, others will block you, and your editing privileges will be taken from you. I strongly suggest that you immediately self-revert your last edit, before someone else does and you are blocked. [Please see the warning that I just placed here [1]] Kamel Tebaast 20:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbpia3

The arbitration committee has imposed limitations on who may edit in the Arab-Israeli topic area. Those conditions are having 500 edits and 30 days tenure. You currently do not meet the requirements and as such may not edit in the topic area. Until you do meet those requirements please edit the other areas of this encyclopedia. Continued editing in the topic area may result in blocks. You may read more about this here. nableezy - 04:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This falls under this restriction. To repeat, you may not make edits related to the Arab-Israeli topic area. If you continue to do so you may be reported and potentially blocked from editing. nableezy - 16:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Angelsi 1989, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Pat Buchanan has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinians

You are not permitted to edit the article Palestinians until you have made at least 500 edits to Wikipedia. Please read and comply with WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 or you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I thought the origin of Palestinians is not necessarily related to the conflict. I won't edit there anymore.--Angelsi 1989 (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

offensive edit summaries

I have hidden the edit summary you made in this edit as an obvious violation of WP:BLP. You are not permitted to slander living people on Wikipedia. For your information, Nicholas de Lange is well-known eminent scholar of Judaism and antisemitism, and Oxford University Press is one of the most reliable academic publishers. So, as well as being offensive, your edit summary was ignorant. This is an official warning. Zero^talk 10:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children). Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Valley of Elah, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Doug Weller talk 06:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations

There is no "narrative". That's a personal attack, so be more careful. The "games" were that the editor added content, then deleted their own edit, then called that deletion vandalism and restored it. That did not make sense and was very weird behavior. I had hoped they would deal with it and make their real intent clear, but you stepped in. Therefore you now take responsibility for that content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to discuss those matters in the article's talk page.--Angelsi 1989 (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angelsi 1989 and BullRangifer, pardon my intrusion, but this is an important article and its possible i might be able to clarify what happened. TheTimesAreAChanging first reverted Specifico, but he did so without giving any edit summary. Realizing his mistake he self-reverted, and then again made the reversion but this time giving an edit summary which was applicable to his first reversion (when he reverted Specifico). Soham321 (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, Soham. I would have thought that all experienced Wikipedians were familiar with the practice of self-reverting to leave an edit summary, and was therefore puzzled by BullRangifer's reference to "games." (Because BullRangifer and SPECIFICO frequently delete large swathes of material on similarly vague grounds, I have found them both rather difficult to deal with.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I hadn't been frequenting the article much lately and saw what seemed rather confusing. It's a very controversial article, so many edits need to be discussed and tweaked before finally finding a mutually acceptable consensus version which will be left in peace. That's often why some added content gets reverted. It hasn't been permanently trashed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I have mentioned you in a currently ongoing AE discussion.
Link to the AE discussion: Link
Background diff: diff1
diff where I mention you: diff2
If you think it appropriate please comment on the AE discussion to share your view of this matter.
Please consider creating your user page so that another editor can ping you in future. Soham321 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nation of Islam and antisemitism

Please read more carefully. Our article says that the listed groups "condemned the Nation of Islam as antisemitic". As you acknowledge in your edit summary, what John Conyers said was "During this speech, Minister Farrakhan made unacceptable racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic statements, which I condemn in the strongest possible terms." In other words, Conyers condemned the words of one speech by one leader of the NoI; he did not say anything at all about the NoI and antisemitism—hell, he didn't even condemn Farrakhan as antisemitic. Just the statements he made in that one speech.

Please read WP:No original research. First you tried to use that source to say that "US congressmen" condemned the NoI as antisemitic, and now you're trying to use it to say that Conyers did so. The source doesn't support such a strong statement about "US congressmen" or about Conyers alone. So please, either find a source in which somebody actually condemned the NoI as antisemitic or drop the stick. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Sagecandor (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at History of the Jews in Europe, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you sending me this message? I just corrected an obvious mistake, the IP changed the content, not me.--Angelsi 1989 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]