User talk:CSWP1

Welcome!

Hello, CSWP1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Mishae (talk) 11:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSWP1, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi CSWP1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to List of Palestinians. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Your personal view doesn't trump a source; and "necessary" isn't the test. Epeefleche (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What original research did I add? My understanding was that I deleted OR that was taking a single study (no scientist says that a single published study creates FACT) and extrapolating it into a misleading addendum of what should be a lead. CSWP1 (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia, 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.

Query[edit]

What was your former user name, on the account to which you have lost the password? Were you subject to any editing restrictions? Thanks. RolandR (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My editing restriction was to stay way from overly-political editors, like this. CSWP1 (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Juliano Mer-Khamis, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RolandR (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Juliano Mer-Khamis. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. RolandR (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't use the talk page, except to reinsert a false accusation. Then you reverted my edit without addressing my concerns. I'm not sure I'm the one edit warring. You came and edited Hizb ut-Tahrir for what reason? Was it because you followed my contributions? Do you have something out for me? I don't want to be your enemy, especially if you are out hunting imagined former foes.

I just added another talkpage comment. Please join me, and in the future, try to watch the hypocrisy. CSWP1 (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Juliano Mer-Khamis. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. RolandR (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your last accusation. Why did you make a new one, instead of responding to what I said before? CSWP1 (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you know (since you replied), I did respond in detail to your earlier comments.[1] RolandR (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By no definition was that "in detail". CSWP1 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Juliano Mer-Khamis. Your repeated deletion of reliably sourced material from this article has been reverted by three editors so far. And talk page consensus also disagrees with you. Please do not repeat this disruptive edit. RolandR (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Juliano Mer-Khamis. RolandR (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the talk page comment again. It isn't "legitimate", it is a baseless accusation that contributes nothing. CSWP1 (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TPO. You want to complain about it go to ANI and if an admin finds it necessary to remove they can remove it. You however cannot. Stop messing with other peoples comments, it makes you look petulant and childish. Oh no, the big bad meanie insulted me. Grow up. nableezy - 09:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. CSWP1 (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:CSWP1 reported by User:RolandR (Result: ). Thank you. RolandR (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 days for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Swarm ^X 22:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]