This is my talk page. I use it to talk to myself. If you wish to talk to me, please talk softly. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions. Please bear in mind these principles when you contribute to articles on the topic.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some might call it trolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FTN#Charles_Enderlin_and_Muhammad_al-Durrah more shopping here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/arret-appel-21-05-08-trebucq.PDF

Rough translation re AugeanStables: http://www.theaugeanstables.com/category/france/

WP:OR

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

WP:TALK The policies that apply to articles also apply (if not to the same extent) to talk pages, including Wikipedia's verification, neutral point of view and no original research policies. There is of course some reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements.

Assume good faith and treat the other person in the discussion as a fellow editor, who is a thinking, feeling person, trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia, just like you - unless, of course, you have objective proof to the contrary. Objective proof means something which can be validated by a third party. The simple fact that someone disagrees with you is not proof of bad faith! Tundrabuggy (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC) --my bolds[reply]

THE RECENT verdict, besides usefully underscoring the right to criticize the press and its sometimes dangerously hasty product, also calls much-needed attention to the ways in which world opinion is shaped by perceptions that are themselves shaped by a not infallible media. The al-Dura affair, like the myth of a massacre in Jenin in April 2002, has been so fervently seized by those who seek confirmation for their belief in Israeli culpability, that it is likely never to be erased from international consciousness. It by now stands well beyond the reach of refutation.

That fact ought to give pause to Israeli officials, like Israeli ambassador to Paris Danny Sheck, who criticized Karsenty for so doggedly pursuing the matter. As for the rest of us, the sordid affair teaches a valuable lesson about the dangerous enthusiasms, especially in Muslim societies, and especially among those who claim to speak for an awakened conscience, for modern myths of Jewish evil. ^[1] --my bolds Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that ChrisO is an involved administrator in several ways, and cannot personally sanction you for disagreeing with him. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Conspiracy_theory_and_BLP_issues_-_eyes_requested

from WIKI BE BOLD:

The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure the wording is accurate, etc. We expect everyone to be bold and help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. How many times have you read something and thought, "Why aren't these pages copy-edited?" Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit the article—it wants you to do it. It does require some amount of politeness, but it works. You'll see.

Also, of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be.

Also, when you see a conflict in a talk page, do not be just a "mute spectator". Be bold and drop your opinion there.

and

Also, substantial changes or deletions to the articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or abortion, or to Featured Articles and Good Articles, should be done with extra care. In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. A careless edit to such an article might stir up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may become defensive. If you would like to make a significant edit to an article on a controversial subject (not just a simple copyedit), it is a useful idea to first read the article in its entirety and skim the comments on the talk page. On controversial articles, the safest course is to find consensus before making changes, but there are situations when bold edits can safely be made to contentious articles. Always use your very best editorial judgment in these cases and be sure to read the talk page.

When editing articles under probation, if you are reverted, you should avoid edit warring, and instead engage in discussion on the talk page in order to establish a compromise. Please note that I'm advising you engage in discussion instead of edit warring, not edit war and debate simultaneously. Given the tense nature of the current dispute, I recommend that you establish consensus on the talk page before making any significant changes. If you continue to edit war, then you are going to be banned from editing this topic. PhilKnight (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad_al-Durrah page is now locked until consensus can be achieved that he was killed dead, and that to believe anything else is to adhere to a conspiracy theory. Isn't consensus a neat thing? Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With edits like this, it has become evident that you are unable to contribute productively to Muhammad al-Durrah. As such, you are banned from editing Muhammad al-Durrah or Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah for a period of three months (until September 10, 2008). Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]