| Revision as of 08:52, 20 June 2007 editMariam83 (talk | contribs)454 edits →personal attacks← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:46, 20 June 2007 edit undoRhobite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,728 edits Three revert ruleNext edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| :::Oh and please feel free to revert this talkpage to an earlier version. | :::Oh and please feel free to revert this talkpage to an earlier version. | ||
| == Three revert rule == | |||
| {{{icon|] }}}You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{{{{subst|}}}#if:Berber people|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a ] among editors. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> -- ] 11:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:46, 20 June 2007
Blanking talk pages
You are correct. I checked Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines, and it says there that a user is permitted to remove messages from his or her talk page if he/she has read those messages, but archiving is preferred. As I wrote previously, if the messages relate to a current dispute or discussion, you should wait until the issue is resolved before you remove the message. YechielMan 05:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see..thanks :-) It's only my third day, I didn't even realize I was causing an "edit war"..
Deletion warning
Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Demographics of Tunisia, you will be blocked from editing. Furthermore, there was consensus on the talk page which you ignored. And why did you blank your talk page half an hour after saying sorry for doing so? If you carry on the way you are, deleting sourced inforamtion that you don't like, you will be blocked, I'm afraid. Bouha 07:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Again, you mistakenly presume to know. I merely thanked the person for the gesture..I in no way planned to obey a contributor and not the rule or my own conscience. Mariam83 07:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- How many times must I point out to you the unverifiability of the source that you provided? I am going to complain about you to higher echelons, for you seem rather limited in comprehension.
- If you keep reverting the blanking of my own page, I am going to report you at once. I am not at all engaged in an edit war, I am merely engaged in a war with morons who rather than reason have chosen to administer rather nearsightedly.
- how dare you accuse me of apologizing for deleting my own talk page? I never apologized, I demanded that the intruder show me a rule, and the rule allows users to delete their talk pages, which I intend to do instantly. What is more, there was nothing on the Demog of Tunisia's talk page, and I pointed out to you, though you seem rather challenged, that your propagandistic insertion contradicts the NUMBERS! In a country of 10 million, 130,000 berbers does not account for the entire population. If you were at all familiar with the complex way in which society functions, particularly in this region, you would know that possibly only very poor, and hence Beber participants were used in this study. You may think you are powerful because you've the ability to block me, but I will fight you till the end. Again, you might wnat to use your reasoning before editing. In this case, simply looking at the numbers would suffice.
personal attacks
This is your only warning. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bouha 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- thank you bouha..I appreciate your input. You might also want to warn collounsbury, as he vehementaly attacks anyone that disagrees with him on his talk page. As a newcomer, I can only benefit from advice. I have further looked into the studies that are often cited on articles relevant to this region and have found the culprit. As i have tried to explain, the large region is diverse and inhabitants of morocco and countries that have traditionally been labeled sub-saharan , i.e. mauritania and western sahara, have no relation to inhabitants of distant coutnries like tunisia, algeria or egypt. On the Berber page in particular, this vastness was overlooked rather feebly and inexcusably. Rather than research the region, the writers chose instead to insert personal views and twist the evidence to suit their vision of a fictional reality. I have made some minor changes, annoatated evidence, that will help the reader understand why to an outsider with little comprehension results seem "debatable" while to one even slightly familiar with the place, they make perfect sense. Thank you again for the warning and best wishes Mariam83 08:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oh and please feel free to revert this talkpage to an earlier version.
Three revert rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Berber people. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -- Rhobite 11:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)