| Revision as of 21:48, 6 March 2015 editMalik Shabazz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers106,163 edits →WP:ARBPIA alert: new sectionTag: contentious topics alert← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:11, 14 March 2015 edit undoYkantor (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,778 edits →WP:ARBPIA alert: user:Malik Shabazz refused to apologize. In my opinion he lost his credibility as an fair and unbiased editor. He claims that my undisputed factual contribution is against a rule that does not exist yetNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. | This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. | ||
| }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | }}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 21:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| This is my reply, copied from . | |||
| I will appreciate it if ] will apologize and undo . The deleted content is is indeed not fully supported but it is correct. According to ] "''any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material"''. My deleted edit : "''The war resulted in significant reduction of Israeli civilians killed by infiltrating Egyptian Fedaeen units"'' is not likely to be challenged since it is a fact which is recognized by all sides, and in my opinion there is no need to support it at all. If ] challenge the accuracy of this sentence, then I'll have to verify it with an appropriate ]. Is the accuracy being challenged? | |||
| ] refused to apologize. In my opinion he lost his credibility as an fair and unbiased editor. He claims that my undisputed factual contribution is against a rule that does not exist yet. ] (]) 13:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:11, 14 March 2015
 Archives |
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
You have continued to engage in edit warring despite several invitations to discuss the matter and a warning that continued disregard will be reported. Consensus is not reached in the summary of an edit. Furthermore, editing without consensus when the opposing side doesn't respond in the discussion is a fully acceptable way of solving a dispute as defined in WP:BRD. Instead of continuously reverting please use the article's talk page to work toward consensus. Turnopoems (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- user:Turnopoems complain is a bit bizarre, as it seems that he is the one who violates the rules. Ykantor (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Israel
Please do not misrepresent what sources say. It is perhaps the most serious error a Misplaced Pages editor can make, and may result in an editor being banned from the site. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
WP:ARBPIA alert
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Template:Z33 — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 21:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This is my reply, copied from here.
I will appreciate it if user:Malik Shabazz will apologize and undo the erasing of my edit . The deleted content is is indeed not fully supported but it is correct. According to wp:Verifiability "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material". My deleted edit : "The war resulted in significant reduction of Israeli civilians killed by infiltrating Egyptian Fedaeen units" is not likely to be challenged since it is a fact which is recognized by all sides, and in my opinion there is no need to support it at all. If user:Malik Shabazz challenge the accuracy of this sentence, then I'll have to verify it with an appropriate wp:rs. Is the accuracy being challenged?
user:Malik Shabazz refused to apologize. In my opinion he lost his credibility as an fair and unbiased editor. He claims that my undisputed factual contribution is against a rule that does not exist yet. Ykantor (talk) 13:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)