User talk:SeattliteTungsten
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello SeattliteTungsten, and welcome to Wikipedia! I have noticed your recent contributions and apologize for the late welcome.
Here are some tips to help you along:
- To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
- Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
- If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
- Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
- Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
- Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!
Good luck! Ramallite (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- 4 tildes... thanks, I was looking for how to do this. -SeattliteTungsten 17:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Israeli West Bank barrier
Hi - please read the no original research policy page. According to the page,
Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".
Creating a new chart and extrapolating data based on your own research violates this policy. Hope this helps. Ramallite (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have read the no original research policy page but do not believe this is original research. See more details in IWBB talk page. SeattliteTungsten 21:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I haven't responded yet - I still have a few points to address but I'll get to them as soon as I can. As for the chart, I was approaching it strictly from a scientist's perspective, in which data illustrating change, introduced in such a manner, would be immediately tossed out and the presenter would be disemboweled with an aluminium toothpick. But I realize now that this is how %GDP is illustrated, so you were right about that. I also agree that if we want to present information, we should do that as neutrally as possible. I still feel the text is a thinly veiled attempt to push a POV that the barrier actually improved the economy (which in my opinion would be something to be proud of, to have a recovering economy in the face of such adversity), but unfortunately we can't really introduce an original concept like that since it would be OR and also inaccurate. I also don't understand why you deleted the most recent reference to the actual GDP (2004) and replaced it with the older 2002. More later, I'll post on the discussion page itself as soon as I can. Ramallite (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] StandWithUs
Thanks for your message. I'm sorry to see that your statement of respect for me on your user talk page was replaced with a condemnation of "loud-mouths" shortly after we had a conflict a number of weeks ago :) So as for ad hominem attacks, I have had enough experience with various editors (including the one in question, who insinuated that s/he thought I was "smarter than that" right on my talk page a few inches above where you left your comment) to safely declare when one's edits (and not personalities) are well-intentioned or not. Basically, when one gets on Wikipedia and commences to edit with the sole intention of delegitimizing or defaming the entire Palestinian people based on actions of a few, such a person clearly has an agenda in mind that I would not call "well intentioned". But then again, that's just me. Thanks again for your note. Ramallite (talk) 19:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is obviously some misunderstanding (or perhaps it's not that obvious). On the Talk:Israeli West Bank barrier page you wrote: "While well-meaning, this is not the best addition to this article". In my edit, I just disagreed with you that it was "well-meaning", that's all. So it was a response to you rather than a direct address to anyone else. Plus, my sentence was "I would hardly call adding propaganda sites like StandWithUs "well-meaning"". In other words, the act of using propaganda sites of the caliper of StandWithUs is something I do not consider well-meaning. Now, do you often go after people who you accuse of making personal attacks on other editors and confront them on their user pages? Or are you just, for whatever reason, focusing on lecturing me? If so, why just me? I'm really curious... Ramallite (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
