User talk:2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C42:74B3:3491:157

July 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Messaoud Dris. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Are you serious? Have you considered what I wrote to you? Your edits made no sense under wp:see also and sensitivity to chrono - one wins a match and wins gold and is then champion. What is this about? You are a more experienced editor than this. And for you -- making the reverts in the first place, to place a warning here is not appropriate on top of this. Given that I assume you do not have an agenda, why these edits?

Kindly explain how you believe that you are editing here - without any apparent consideration of wp:see also and chronological issues - carefully and constructively, adhering to the purposes of Wikipedia; following editorial and behavioural best practices.--2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C42:74B3:3491:157 (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the contentious topics alert (see below)? M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: have you read the contentious topics alert (see below)? M.Bitton (talk) 23:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friend. We are on a talk page. And I'm talking to you, as I have been throughout.

I've asked you questions. First. You have ignored them. Not answered. Templated. And now you are asking questions without answering mine. Which I asked first.

Perhaps we need to bring in an admin to review this, as all efforts at discussion have not been met with anything resembling collegial response.

You deleted relevant material, that is completely consistent with wp:see also.

Agreed?

You also for some inexplicable reason - certainly not explained by you -- reverted an (admittedly minor) copy edit meant to put a sentence in chrono order, and therefore make it more readable.

Efforts to discuss it with you via edit summary have been unavailing.

You initially said there was no reason for the see also. On that basis, you deleted it. But as I wrote him in my edit summary "seriously? no reason? see wp:see also. And see the explanation, per wp:see also. And note all the coverage of him in conjunction with today's event. This is a perfectly appropriate see also."

Your basis was clearly incorrect.

Your reaction? You simply deleted it a second time. Engaging in a second revert of the same subject matter. Without any explanatory discussion of how you imagine that your multiple deletions conformed with wp:see also.

And then templated me for edit warring - opposite day.

Zero explanation yet again for your revert of the chrono order. Using tools - other than in the case of vandalism - for such a revert without proper edit summary is really not good form.

So I ask you again, what is your rationale?

We can always ask an admin to join this discussion, review behavior, and make the two changes you keep on reverting themselves if that is your only issue. But you've continued to be quite non-collegial, in my experience, and failed to respond to the substantive issues I have posed repeatedly. I do feel rather bullied by you, and that you are energetically avoiding discussion of the two substantive issues, and instead reverting and templating. I appreciate your response - if we can't work it out, let's ask a sysop for help. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C42:74B3:3491:157 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

M.Bitton (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.