Welcome!
Hello, Samuel B52, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Nilotpal42 18:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Salut! Pour faire des italiques, au lieu des caractères gras, tu utilises deux apostrophes au lieu de trois:
''italiques'', au lieu des '''caractères gras'''
Physchim62 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merci ! :-) Samuel B52 (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you made several very POV edits to this article.
- You have removed the fact that the nine killed where IHH members twice now - [1] [2] - this information is sourced several times in the article.
- You added words into a direct quote which changed its meaning [3]. I fixed this one.
- You removed the sourced information that two soldiers had life threatning wounds [4]. I see that is being discussed on the talk page.
- You removed an Israeli source saying it's not reliable and a foreign one is needed (implying Israeli sources are inherently unreliable) [5]
Please note that this article is under discretionary sanctions and this sort of behavior might get you banned.
I suggest you fix your edits to be more in line with Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV, among others. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, you also have several POV edits with several unreliable sources. I made a mistake for just one edit but not for all like you say. I suggest you fix your errors because I don't have enough time to correct all of your mistake.I suggest you fix your edits to be more in line with Wikipedia policies such as WP:V and WP:NPOV, among others like reliable source.
And please read carefully referenced links as I do.
[6] [7] is not in accordance with source linked.
If you menace me another time for nothing, I will ask for sanction about you also. I hope I'm enough clear. My English is poor but I'm not impressionable.
The israeli source is not in English. So it's not a reliable source. Please read Policies about what is a reliable source
Cheers from France Samuel B52 (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wall Street Journal clearly says the IHH says they were members. Did you even read it?
- As for sources not in English, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources.
- If you prefer I don't bring this sort of thing up with you before I do something else with it, feel free to tell me. There's no need for hollow threats when I was doing you a courtesy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't like to be menace as you've done. It's not my conception of courtesy. for the moment, you are not a example for courtesy.Samuel B52 (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bringing this up with you first is certainly a courtesy. My note was worded politely and I can't see what you'd find menacing about it, but like I said, if you prefer I don't contact you directly with this sort of thing, just let me know and I'll respect your wish. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I used words I know. Thks Samuel B52 (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samuel,
I guess I'm just the latest person to note the many POV edits you made to the flotilla article recently. Don't feel singled out too much though, I've also brought this up with editors who are putting in too much POV on the Israeli side.
Please keep on helping with the article, but try to be more neutral, avoid POV wording, and focus on the facts.
Cheers,
Zuchinni one (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you could talk to me on the page for the article. I prefer.
And please be more accurate about allegations I made non neutral POV.
Thks Samuel B52 (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- for example, here you seem to have intentionally misquoted Berlin by adding 'only'. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368191245&oldid=368188297
- Also you changed 'offer' to 'demand' ... this is not accurate since the flotilla had many options, including just turning around. They were only being kept away from Gaza. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368181215&oldid=368176646
- There are others, but I think you get the gist.
- Zuchinni one (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A offer we can't refuse is not a offer but a strong request or an order. Please be careful with accuracy of words. I'm not a sophist, please understand that. And please use the talk page for the article when you want to talk about this article as I asked just before above. It's easier for me. Thks
- I don't understand about the demand. They were not being forced to Ashdod, just being kept away from Gaza. They could have 1) turned around and gone back to Turkey 2) Gone to Ashdod or 3) gone to Egypt since they also agreed to deliver the aid overland.
- However if you want to change the wording so that it was "Israeli demand that they stay away from Gaza" that would be appropriate because in fact that was a demand. But the offer to go to Ashdod instead was not. Cheers -- Zuchinni one (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
pas de pb ;) j'ai vécu en France pendant sept ans, alors mon français est d'un niveau passable, mais je ne connais pas d'équivalent en français de la phrase "walking wounded"! Originalement, c'était une expression militaire, mais aujourd'hui c'est trés répandue pour tout genre de blessure réelle mais sans gravité – comme si tu peux marcher tu n'es pas "vraiment" blessé. Physchim62 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
I thought I'd replied at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid, but I guess I didn't!
When I said I would "dodge 1", what I meant was that I wouldn't really address the first issue (the issue of renaming the article). "Dodge" means "avoid" or "evade": I was avoiding the first issue because I thought the second issue was the more important issue in that discussion.
I live in Scotland (and come from New Zealand) and I have some bad habits with language: I often use terms that native-English speakers wouldn't recognise. If I do that in future, please don't hesitate to ask me to clarify what I mean.
Happy editing! TFOWR 15:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I thank you for your explanation. I think you understood that I'm French and some times, it's difficult for me to understand English. I will not hesitate to ask for accuracy in the future. Thanks again :-) Samuel B52 (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Samuel,
You might not be aware, but currently the Gaza flotilla article is under 1 revert protection. Which means you should not change or revert another author's edit more than once in a 24 hour period.
You have made 2 reverts in the last few hours.
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368408696&oldid=368407963
and
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368389973&oldid=368389611
Also you should look at WP:Vandal to get a better idea as to what constitutes vandalism, because it doesn't look like the edit you removed would be considered as such.
Anyway, I'm not going to report you or anything. Lot of people made the same mistakes without realizing about the 1RR protection. This is just an FYI so you can be aware of it for yourself and for other editors that might be making the same mistake.
Cheers,
Zuchinni one (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain me how can you be able to read on the article and not at this page ? I asked you to write on the talk page for the article. Is it enough clear or need I explain with other language ? Go on talk page of the article and explain for all of us please. I can imagine that your write can be relevant for the others. It seams that you have a lot of spirit which should improve others point of view. I thank you Samuel B52 (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Samuel, I saw your new section on the talk page and I'm glad you put it there. But the 1RR rule applies to everything. Even if someone is coming in and obviously making changes without consent, you still should be careful about making reverts. I'm telling you this because the admins have been watching the page closely and have blocked many people for the same mistake you made. Even if you have only the best of intentions you should be careful about reverting changes.
- I think that it's important for many editors with different points of view to help to make this article great. So even if we disagree on some wording I don't want you to get banned, because your input is valuable and helps to direct the changes to the article in a positive way. Zuchinni one (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are right : if many editors don't respect the work of the other, it will be difficult to make a great job. Thank for your reminder. Now please read carefully that : " Please come on article's talk page if you want to tell me something about the article" At now, because I asked at several times before to write on article's talk page, I will consider interventions on my talk page with a referring on this article, as intimidation, and I will do what is appropriate to stop that promptly . Okay ? Agree ? Samuel B52 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is common practice to try and address issues that don't directly relate to the content of articles on the user talk pages Wikipedia:User_pages. In fact it is considered very rude to "out" an editor on the discussion page of an article for too many reverts etc ... I came to your talk page to be polite and out of respect for you.
- It is also common to try and resolve simple disputes about content through the user pages, although the meatier stuff does belong in the main article discussion page. But if all the user chat was on that page it would quickly get clogged up. However since you seem uncomfortable with talk on the user pages I will only use it to contact you in the future for subjects that do not deal directly with the content of the article. Zuchinni one (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
Here you suggested that you were going to re-add a "see also" for the SS Exodus. Please do not!
There is currently no consensus for it to be included, and several editors have removed it.
I happen to support its inclusion, but we have to respect the consensus (which is, currently, that it should not be included yet).
TFOWR 19:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read the consensus and I clearly understand that we don't revert a addition because there is No consensus. Secondly,
History don't belong to a part of us, but to all of us, I think. And 3th, multiple RS mentioned that link. For this three reasons, I will put this again because it's in accordance with WP policies. If it's not possible because a another editor remove it, I will add it with other solution, for example in the lead, in introduction or in a another section. Or may be should we find another process or policy to make this edit ? ( Please, could you talk to me on the talk page of the article ? I prefer to not hide what is my position and my opinion. I think It can be helpful for the others also to read comments).Samuel B52 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally, I'll talk on the article's talk page - this time I didn't want to risk offending you by disagreeing with you "publicly". But I understand - and respect - your wish to talk publicly.
- I can't stop you adding it, if you wish to add it. All I can do is advise that it will concern many editors. I don't understand why, but many editors seem to object quite strongly to it being included.
- The way to include the SS Exodus that I would prefer, is simply to keep talking!
- But I promised you I'd stop talking here and return to the article's talk page! See you back there!
- TFOWR 19:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I believe this is your 3rd revert to the Gaza Flotilla raid article in about 7 hours (previous [8] [9], one revert for the same text, one unrelated). As you are aware, this article is under a one revert restriction as is clearly stated on the top of the talk page. This means you are allowed to revert once per 24 hours. Please self-revert your edit. I see you have been notified about this earlier today as well. Be aware that violation of the one revert restriction would most likely cause you to be blocked if reported (also if some passing admin happens to notice). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you should see what is a REVERT in policy. I'm just editing in accordance with WP policy. Thanks for coming to tell me your point of view but you are wrong with WP policies. Please read carefully the policies Samuel B52 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you read WP:REVERT. It starts out with "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously". When you remove text that someone else put in, or add text that someone removed, you are reverting. If you won't take my word for it, go ask someone you trust. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sincere why don't you believe me ? Samuel B52 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a matter of believing you or not, it's a matter of facts. I'm sure you don't think that because you changed a couple of words it is no longer considered a revert. Seriously, go ask someone experienced who you trust. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I will go ask as you suggest. Please wait. Samuel B52 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is also a revert, re-inserting material which you were told specifically on the talk page you have no consensus to do. The fact you added a few words (an alternative name for the ship) but essentially inserted the same material (with the same source) doesn't change the fact it's a revert. You're new here and I'm seriously trying not to WP:BITE, but if you continue with this behavior I will report you and you'll most likely get banned. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your nice attention. I asked and I'm waiting for another opinion. please don't be nervous. Ok ? Wait few minutes please. Thks Mr Nice Guy. Samuel B52 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Final warning
Samuel, I'm well aware that you're new to English Wikipedia, although you say you have some experience on French Wikipedia. You must be aware that you have stepped into a minefield with the topic you have chosen to edit. Edit-warring is unacceptable anywhere on English Wikipedia, and particularly on topics relating to the many conflicts between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Our efforts should be directed towards improving the article, not simply trying to position our favorite edits where we want them. For this reason, the article Gaza flotilla raid is subject to a one-revert restriction: if someone removes your addition, you can replace it; but if it is removed again, you must wait for at least 24 hours. Obviously, in both cases, it is better to go to the talk page and see what people dislike about your edit before reverting, but you must go to the talk page with an open mind, prepared to have a mistake pointed out to you. These edits [10][11] could well be taken to be an edit-war, given the lapse of only five hours between them. Please try to calm down and listen to people on the talk page, especially those who you don't agree with, or you will be temporarily blocked from editing English Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel, je suis tout à fait conscient que tu manques d'expérience sur le Wikipédia anglophone, alors que tu dises avoir une certaine expérience sur le Wikipédia francophone. Tu dois être conscient que tu es entré dans un champs de mines avec le sujet que tu souhaites éditer. Les guerres d'éditions ne sont acceptables nulle part au Wikipédia anglophone, et pour autant même moins sur les articles traitant les plusiers conflits entre Israël et l'Autorité Palestinienne. Nos efforts doivent être orientés vers l'amélioration de l'article, et ne pas seulement vers le pistonnage de nos éditions les plus chéries. Alors, l'article "Gaza flotilla raid" fait le suject d'une restriction d'édtion particulière, dite 1RR: si quelqu'un révoque tes changements, tu peux les remplacer; mais si les changements sont révoqués de nouveau, il faut attendre au moins 24 heures. Évidemment, il vaut mieux dans les deux cas d'amener le désaccord à la page de discussion de l'article, pour voir ce que les autres éditeur te reprochent de tes changements, avant de révoquer qui que soit: mais il faut te présenter à la page de discussion avec un ésprit qui accepterait des éventuels critiques. Ces changements [12][13] pourrait bien constituer une guerre d'éditions, vu le délai de seulement cinq heures entre les deux. S'il te plaît, essaie de te calmer et d'écouter les gens qui contribuent à la page de discussion de l'article, surtoit les personnes avec qui tu es en désaccord. Sinon, tu seras bloqué du Wikipédia anglophone pour une durée définie (qui pourrait être des heures, des jours ou des semaines). Physchim62 (talk) 23:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok , I really appreciate your point of view and your effort to write in French. Also, as I understand, there is no alternative to keep this article in accordance with a neutral view which include all the fact and balance for the moment. I thought that I'm trying to improve and not to make a war edition in doing that, because the policy ask to balance point of view and it was not the case. I thought that some rules was more important, like a sort of levels of rules to stay near the fact. In this example, It was, from my point of view, a respond to a request of WP policy. I thought also I didn't do "revert" because I didn't use "undo" and took care to rewrite another things. But It's the first time I was on this kind of article and I saw that person like me who seams to refuse a part of reality when then delete a speech like in example. I don't spend time to delete but to write. So, I think that I understand what you want to tell me even I still don't know exactly why I'm doing wrong, especially what is a "revert" and what is not a "revert". I will read that point more carefully tomorrow. Many thanks Physchim62 for the time you spend to explain me. Samuel B52 (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be in anyway rude, but understood from some of your comments that your english is not very good. If that is the case I'm wondering why you choose to edit Gaza flotilla raid that is currently an very active article where words and sentenced have been tweaked to the edge of getting it written in good English. The result is that your edits get reverted. Maybe you should chose articles that aren't "on the edge" where your edits get better appreciated. --Kslotte (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your opinion, but I can read better than I write. And to re-write English from an RS article, it's no so hard. It's for discussion that it should be difficult ;-). Samuel B52 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Samuel, In the future when you add references, please remember that this is the English wikipedia. So while non-english references can sometimes be OK, that is only the case if you cannot find an English reference. Here are the guidelines Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 02:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a peek at this: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Some_questionable_past_edits --Kslotte (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]