User talk:Ed Gies

Crackpot theories!

Please stop removing text and calling it Crackpot theories just because you don't agree with it. It can be seen as disruptive.
Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Adnanmuf is entering complete nonsense in these articles. He clearly understands nothing about DNA research, and has invented most of what he is writing. Are you prepared to vouch for the accuracy of his work? Ed Gies (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

From article Palestinian people, you have removed large portions of text that was sourced and referenced. I know absolutely nothing about DNA or DNA research nor do I know anything about Adnanmuf (talk · contribs) but removal of properly sourced and referenced text should, in my opinion, be discussed on the article's talk page and removed only if there is a concensus reached. Go here and explain why you think these are crackpot theories or nonsense and see what others think. SWik78 (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with and support E$d Gies edits. please let me know if you need me to express my support anywhere. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't "sourced and referenced" at all. If you had read the talk page, as I have, you would see that the author is inserting his own incoherent theories, and the sources he use often don't even refer to what he says. In other cases he completely contradicts the findings of the sources he brings. Do you understand DNA research? Are you prepared to vouch for what he says? Are you prepared to at least read the Talk page in question? Ed Gies (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my previous statement I c-l-e-a-r-l-y stated the following: I know absolutely nothing about DNA or DNA research nor do I know anything about Adnanmuf (talk · contribs) yet you find the need to ask me the questions Do you understand DNA research? Are you prepared to vouch for what he says? after I made my statement. I don't quite understand the point you were trying to make by asking me questions that I already answered. In addition, I did read the talk page and I can find nothing where an editor admits of inserting incoherent theories. That is your opinion, not fact. Either way, my point was to discuss what changes you might make to an article if there exists a possibility that your edits will be challenged. If you don't discuss your proposed changes (before you make them that is, not afterwards) you are likely to get engaged into an edit or revert war with the user of opposing view. I'm discussing Wikipedia policies and using them towards creative editing, I'm not discussing genetics. I think both of you think you're right and the other one is wrong and if both of you started reverting each other's edits, articles will get disrupted. Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom notification.

Hello. This is to inform you that editors working on articles about Palestine or Israel may be subject to discretionary sanctions if they fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. This was determined by the arbitration committee at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions. Please refer to WP:5P to an index of relevant policies and guidelines. Thanks. Sandstein (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)