User talk:Tecspk@aol.com
Welcome
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
[edit]
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
[edit]Hello, Tecspk@aol.com. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Gaza flotilla raid is covered by WP:ARBPIA sanctions
[edit]
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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 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.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Explanation given in the post following. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Reason for the ARBPIA alert
[edit]Since the Arbcom sanctions apply to Gaza flotilla raid, there are especially strong expectations of good behavior by anyone choosing to work there. A complaint was made about your edits at the COI noticeboard (permanent link), where an editor stated you were engaged in 'blatantly POV editing.' Without taking a position on the correctness of this claim, your involvement on a heated article is enough reason to make you aware. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, and I will try to be more careful when posting sources that bolster the flotilla's position. I would also like to mention that this same editor blatantly announced my name to everyone, a clear violation of Wikipedia ethics. Tecspk@aol.com (talk) 08:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
BLP
[edit]Please show restraint when editing articles that are about living people. Unsourced content should not be added (even if positive). You also removed sourced information. You are welcome to bring it up at the talk page if you feel it is a neutrality issue.Cptnono (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
BLP
[edit]Since neither The Nation nor the horrible reporting by their reporter printed Ms. Berlin's explanation, we are posting it here. It's bad enough that Wikipedia has become a mouthpiece for vested interests, but it is quite clear that blogs like Algemiener are NOT reputable.
Mike Hanini Odetalla's post. January 7 at 7:28pm ·
Mike Hanini Odetalla When the French, British, and others were busy killing MILLIONS of Muslims, nobody thought to bring up their "Christian" faith...No one questioned whether Christianity was "peaceful" religion or not, and no Christians stepped up to condemn these acts, yet a double standard is at play when so-called "Muslim" criminals engage in criminal actions...The world is "horrified" when a dozen people are killed, yet when Israel massacres hundreds of innocent children in Gaza, NOTHING! Wrong is wrong! Like · · Share o Linda Newton, Chukwudi Onugha, Bunny Farmer and 9 others like this. Greta Berlin "MOSSAD just hit the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo in a clumsy false flag designed to damage the accord between Palestine and France....Here's hoping the French police will be able to tell a well executed hit by a well trained Israeli intelligence service and not assume the Muslims would be likely to attack France when France is their freind... Israel did tell France there would be grave consequences if they voted with Palestine. A four year old could see who is responsible for this terrible attack." January 7 at 7:32pm · Like · 7 ローズ愛神 Agreed. How did every single one of them escape if not for inside cooperation? January 7 at 7:53pm · Unlike · 3 David J Rubinson Qui Bono ? Who gains ? Look: No one. NO ONE. Knows. The exact people who did this. But we certainly know who gains, and who caused it. The perps are obvious: those who gain when we hate, blame, stand divided. The blaming of The Brown has long been well under way in France, in Europe, In the USA,and world-wide. Hebdo was worse than racist, it was a promoter of division and hatred and distrust and fear. Just like CNN and The New York Times-- so quickly blaming Allah Akbar screaming Muslim Fanatics with Kalashnikovs. I'm sure they will find some handy ones available to surround and kill by week's end. Meanwhile the vast lie machine goes on: Boston Marathon, North Korea, Russia shooting down the plane, NAACP bombing, all just this week. It's up to US to refuse this and to fight it with every breath. We KNOW who did it. DR in France. January 7 at 10:16pm · Unlike · 3 Ellen Cantarow A four-year-old could. But not the media! January 7 at 10:25pm · Unlike · 1 Greta Berlin For the lunatic Ziobots who like to follow me and get all hysterical over anything I post, let me give you a little lesson. When someone puts "____" around a statement, it means they are quoting someone else. But then, most of you Ziobots are too stupid to figure out that the quote came from elsewhere. The last I checked, I had every right to share without comme...See More Yesterday at 8:08am · Like · 4 Greta Berlin However, I do get a kick out of your hysteria and complete waste of time, as though any of us who actually work for justice in Palestine give a rat's ass what you think. By all mean, DO make sure you screen shot this entire conversation so you don't look like the utter fools that you are. 21 hrs · Edited · Like · 5 ローズ愛神 Zio booger eaters at it again? Delete... delete... no forum for congenital rejects. Yesterday at 8:11am · Unlike · 2 Greta Berlin Look... here's another one that you hysterics can grab (and it comes from another source, note the quote marks.). "The youngest of the "attackers" in France has handed himself into the police saying he was in class at the time of the attacks. Something stinks here, considering that Mossad routinely steals identities to use in their death squad operations." 21 hrs · Edited · Like · 7
The last submission on the Greta Berlin page is inaccurate, since she never made the quote and it came from Facebook, not a source anyone should be using. In addition. Wikipedia makes it very clear that no blogs should be used for verification, and Albemeiner is a known right-wing blog.
- I'm not familiar with the source but it looked OK at a glance. Even without it, there are other sources discussing the incident. You have broken the 1 revert in 24/hrs rule and it looks like you have a questionable history when editing about the subject. I will be adding more information after researching it more. Please do not continue to edit war.Cptnono (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- After looking at it more i'm struggling to see why it can't be mentioned. Haaretz spells it out clearly. I don't see any retractions or rebuttals. It wouldn't be the first time there has been a social media blunder. Can you provide reasoning to not include?
Also, it takes a minute to know that you have a conflict of interest as previously reported by another editor. I believe I even warned you about it on another account a couple years ago.Cptnono (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I have located the discussions and brought it to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard.Cptnono (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
/* BLP */ Greta wrote to both the Nation and the reporter of this article in rebuttal of the original post. In addition, she has the original conversation which clearly states that the comment does not belong to her. However, neither the Nation nor the reporter chose to publish her rebuttal.
- Although it is best to assume good faith, there has been a history of COI and the user name matches an email address pubically used by the subject.Cptnono (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have also reverted your edit to Culver. I don't need to go into detailed thoughts on the school (since we are having conflicts of interest I hope you'll trust me when I look down my nose at CMA) I do need to remind you to start using reliable sources. Wikipedia is not your resume. It is not your opportunity to tell people about your passions. It is an encyclopedia. Instead of posting a long rebuttal on your talk page you should instead go to the talk page of an article and summarize what needs changing and what sources back it up. Writing to some site comes across as grasping at straws and I'm not surprised it wasn't published.Cptnono (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
[edit] This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Reminder
[edit]Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.In addition, as a result of this ruling, all IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. RolandR (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)