This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anticyclone à banias (talk | contribs) at 21:18, 30 October 2015 (→Reported for edit-warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:18, 30 October 2015 by Anticyclone à banias (talk | contribs) (→Reported for edit-warring)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)October 2015
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Gaza Strip has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Gaza Strip was changed by Anticyclone à banias (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.859522 on 2015-10-29T04:57:24+00:00 2410917.
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:ARBPIA alert
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
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.Template:Z33--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Reported for edit-warring
I have reported your account here for edit-warring on Gaza Strip. RolandR (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
It is easy to be provactive. The bot was a false positive, because I deleted the flag. But the second edit I left the flag. I think you shoud refrain from reverting without a reason. --Anticyclone à banias (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with flags. You are repeatedly inserting an assertion that Gaza is not a part of the State of Palestine. This is a highly contentious edit, and even if you can produce reliable sources which make this assertion you should seek consensus on the talk page first. And you should certainly not edit war to include such a claim. RolandR (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Anticyclone, you technically broke the 1RR rule at Gaza strip. I am prepared to close the AE complaint. To avoid a block you should promise to stop reverting and wait for consensus. Anything to do with the state of Palestine is going to be controversial. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, I believe your reaction was disproportionate. "Administred by Hamas and claimed by the State of Palestine" to describe the Gaza strip is factualy true. I can show up fews documents if you find it is necessary. I think accusing me of "POV warring" is contentious in this type of situation. I personally did not find anywhere that reverting this bot was part of the 1RR "rule".
NB: Don't you think that, being opposed to the "right" of (the Jewish) people to self determination is unusual for people who fought against racism and indentify themselves as part of that group. Good day --Anticyclone à banias (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- Anticyclone, if you want to accept my offer you need to promise to wait for consensus before changing the Gaza Strip article again. Otherwise a block may be issued. EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I implicitly accepted your judgment/offer/proposal. Though, I am not in a position to swear to respect an inexistant Misplaced Pages Constitution and laws. Hereby, I assume good faith, as I never assumed the opposite so far.
. That's all I can do for now, Good day. --Anticyclone à banias (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)A bad faith edit, or a bad faith comment, is an edit or comment made deliberately to disrupt the project. The best example of genuine bad faith is vandalism. While bad faith is not strictly limited to vandalism, the key component of bad faith is the deliberate attempt to be unconstructive.
- @EdJohnston
- @RolandR
- CU's on wp:fr identified Anticyclone à banias as a sock of a banned user there
- He is as provocative there than here and WP:NOTHERE there and here Pluto2012 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I followed the above link to the CU finding on the French Misplaced Pages, but it appears that the result was 'Négatif'. None of the reported accounts have been blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston
- No, no... The result is positive at 90 % but things move forward slowly on wp:fr.
- I'll inform you of the evolution Pluto2012 (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I followed the above link to the CU finding on the French Misplaced Pages, but it appears that the result was 'Négatif'. None of the reported accounts have been blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
- I implicitly accepted your judgment/offer/proposal. Though, I am not in a position to swear to respect an inexistant Misplaced Pages Constitution and laws. Hereby, I assume good faith, as I never assumed the opposite so far.
- No this page is my talk page, please go talk about blocking me elsewhere.