Mmcitizen101

Welcome!

Hello, Mmcitizen101, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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! Doc Quintana (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kenneth O'Keefe. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are both going to have to stop edit warring and work together to achieve consensus, see WP:Editor_assistance/Requests#Dispute_between_two_editors_-_http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FKenneth_O.2527Keefe –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening dispute resolution now, attempted discussion but facts were ignored and an edit war did commence; this was an accident on my behalf, I now know I should have moved to dispute resolution when the discussion went nowhere. In my defense I did make good faith effort in the discussion.

Many thanks Mmcitizen101 (talk) 13:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Correction, I did initiate dispute resolution by requesting editor assistance after the discussion went nowhere. I thought this message was a response to that request, I guess it is not. So I am still waiting for the editors assistance. In the meantime what appears to be politically motivated edits were being made despite the sources verifying truthful content was being deleted. I did all that I could through discussion to make this clear. I may have been wrong, but using the guidelines of Wikipedia, especially sourced material, I did what I thought was right to prevent malicious editing. Mmcitizen101 (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just read your request on EAR. Yes, it's just old fashioned edit warring, but you may wish to take a couple of things into consideration that you might not have thought of. First of all, this cited reference #1 http://www.socialenterpriselive.com/section/news/people/20100603/social-entrepreneur-among-captured-gaza-aid-convoy does not meet WP:RS criteria as an admissible source. Secondly, because this concerns a WP:BLP, this information is contentious, without [[WP:V], and not provable; it must therefore be removed from the page. Thirdly, an article talk page is to discuss improvements to an article itself and not to argue other issues that might be up for debate elsewhere, Finally, you are both way over the 3RR already and you will both just end up getting blocked if you persist with this disruptive editing, and the article might be semi protected. I hope this helps.--Kudpung (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain why the Social Enterprise Magazine source is not an 'admissible source'? And another question, to what extent can a living persons blog be used as a source? I am looking for the answers to these questions but your help will be much appreciated. Mmcitizen101 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

COI?

You seem to be a single-purpose account, exclusively editing the Kenneth O'Keefe article or the details related to O'Keefe's participation in the Gaza flotilla. These leads me to suspect there is a serious Conflict of Interest at play here - could you elaborate on the relationship between yourself and O'Keefe? Please read the linked article about COI, and make sure you edit accordingly. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

My interest lies in being a Wikipedia reader who saw how Mr. O'Keefe's information was continually omitted or perverted by those who make it there job to do with people who speak plainly about the Palestine/Israel conflict. I am just wondering, since you have taken an interest in me, have you taken a look at Mr. O'Keefe's article history, along with Human shield action to Iraq, something he founded? If you take a serious look and square the history you will see that gross injustices have occurred in either removing him or slandering him. Being a keen observer and patron of Wikipedia this disturbed me and as I looked deeper into his history and the events he is involved in I decided to monitor his page. I have a niche interest because of the damage done to Wikipedia by allowing biased, un-sourced content to be added. I do not know about you but my "single-purpose" is a direct result of the same time constraints that are inherent in having to pay bills and make a living. I could float from here to there on subjects I know less about, but how would that serve Wikipedia? I am sticking with the subjects I am well read on and have the greatest ability to enhance.

In this effort I have used copious amounts of sources because anything that is verifiably true yet unpopular with supporters of Israel is attacked. Surely you are aware of this well established aspect of Wikipedia. You say "we can't state in Wikipedia's neutral voice that the blockade is "illegal" or that he was a "survivor"" unless "we can attribute such claims to those making them, and do so in the article body, not the lead." OK fine, but please explain to me, understanding all of the sources provided which report on the findings of a United Nations report (and I said this in the discussion) there were roughly 600 passengers on the ship, over 50 were shot and killed. O'Keefe himself was beaten badly, as were others, again widely reported and sourced, with that established how is it incorrect to call him a survivor? As a comparison, if a plane crashed and 10% of the people were seriously injured or died, would we call the rest survivors or passengers? Would it be controversial to call them survivors? Please let me know, maybe I am missing something here, otherwise it seems absolutely valid to refer in the lead and body to Mr. O'Keefe as a survivor; this is not a hidden agenda, this is an attention to detail and accuracy. To provide a more stark example, we refer to people on the Titanic who died as passengers, those who survived are called survivors. This is not controversial, this is logical.

As for "illegal", it will attributed to the people and institutions that say it then, as you wish. This will be an incredibly long list however, since this too is problematic and people will try to remove it. So please come to assist the truth and defend the term being used since the Red Cross, United Nations, European Union, the Arab League, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, countless public figures including Desmond Tutu, the vast majority of international attorneys, all consider the blockade is illegal and a form of collective punishment. Since you are a more experienced editor, hom many sources would you like and how many attributions shall I cite?

And let me ask, if all these sources and more were in consensus and reported about any other country, would we be held to the impossible standard that is in place when it comes to the Palestine/Israel conflict?

Anyway, please guide me on how you would like "survivor" and "illegal" to be added since adding both maintain/enhance Wikipedia's integrity? Regardless of our personal positions my interest is indeed to enhance Wikipedia by adding verifiable and valid content that gives the reader a better understanding. I very much look forward to your guidance in this effort.Mmcitizen101 (talk) 09:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)