Backarn

February 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Yesh Atid 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: Yesh Atid was changed by Backarn (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853066 on 2018-02-13T21:22:20+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Further to the above, please stop reverting on the article. You have now reached three reverts, and any further reverts will take you over WP:3RR, probably resulting in your account being blocked. Cheers, Number 57 22:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. 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 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 that 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.

Doug Weller talk 10:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Natalie Portman. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Natalie Portman, you may be blocked from editing. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You're the one who's reverting my edits without any explanation whatsoever. I clearly argued that Wikipedia consensus is to write "Israel" after locations in West Jerusalem, you have not made a counter argument, therefore, you're the disruptive one. Backarn (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Natalie Portman. Discuss at the talk page as instructed. It does not matter how right you think you might be; consensus is achieved through discussion, and there is a long-standing consensus at this article. Making a point in an edit summary is not a "clear argument". 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: I feel like we got off on the wrong foot. I'm not making a political point, purely a geographical one. You should stop using fear tactics of blocking, that's not very constructive. Please understand my argument instead; you are simply geographically incorrect. The only disputed portion of the Jerusalem District is East Jerusalem, it even says so in the article. Backarn (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"I feel like we got off on the wrong foot"... clearly my final warning got to you. Basically, you're saying, "Don't warn me, as that's 'not very constructive', just listen to me instead". That's not how Wikipedia works – I've responded to your (rather provocative) attempt at discussion at the talk page, so I'd be worrying about that at the moment. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@4TheWynne: I was tempted to add "nor is it effective since I'm not intimidated", but I figured that would be rude. Given how rude you are right now, I'm writing it anyways. As of now, I will ignore you until you stop making vague threats and start making factual arguments. Backarn (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to History of ancient Israel and Judah, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. The map has no source, you can remove the map or find a reliable source for the map, but please don't remove the citation needed tag again. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Your recent editing history at Freedom of speech by country shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Grayfell (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIAINTRO

Pr WP:ARBPIAINTRO, editors, with "less than than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict."

And that includes you. If you ignore this, expect to be reported, and to be blocked, Huldra (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Huldra: Okay, but will you please take a look at the text I deleted? The same source was always used, and it's completely irrelevant to the Golan Heights as it even uses a ruling from the Israeli Supreme that specifically refers to the Judea and Samaria Area. Backarn (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willschmut. Thank you. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Triggerhippie4: Thanks, I've just responded. Backarn (talk) 08:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Important question

@Bbb23: Why am I blocked? Did you not look at the CheckUser or did you make the same mistake as Swedish Wiki and automatically blocked based solely on circumstantial "evidence"? Backarn (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how you can conclude 'not look at the CheckUser' from the comments in the SPI. If you haven't looked the the SPI, I suggest you do so now. It was linked above and is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Willschmut. Or a permalink to avoid confusion once it's archived [1]. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)