User talk:Dianagurman

tendentious editing[edit]

Having reverted the same text twice on Ethnic Cleansing related to an on-going conflict (ex) with reason "not in source" amounts to vandalism. For one, the term is right in the title. I encourage you to engage in a discussion on the articles' talk page if you have other problems with the text. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 15:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ethnic cleansing. 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. (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

== Introduction to contentious topics ==

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

(t · c) buidhe 18:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for editing in the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area after being warned that it is not open to new users, you have been blocked temporarily from editing Wikipedia. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Hi there! I can see that you're a new user; I'm happy to lift this block if you respond affirmatively that you're familiar with the notices that have been provided above. Editing in the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area rqeuires your account to have more than 500 edits and be more than 30 days old. Please also refrain from reinstating the same edit multiples, commonly called edit warring. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then appeal to the Unblock Ticket Request System. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]