Lemondropzzz

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Palestine Solidarity Campaign, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm Gamaliel. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Glenn Greenwald seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Andy Ram

Hey! This is Ronak. I recently saw your edit to Andy Ram's page which corrected that Jerusalem isn't an Israeli city. I amn't aware of the entire history of the conflict and I do know that it is claimed by multiple faiths and countries, but at present, Jerusalem is administered by Israel, in which case, shouldn't it be considered an Israeli city? Thank you. Ronakshah1990 05:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronakshah1990 (talk • contribs)

October 2015

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~ ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

You are making a series of edits to a number of pages. Most of which have been regarded as disruptive. I am now referring you to administrators and I warn you that you risk being blocked from editing. If you are acting in good faith then explain your changes on the talk page where they are controversial. If you refuse to do this then we can only conclude that you are being disruptive. All of your edit history is visible to administrators. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

What part of WP:BRD is is that you don't understand? Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.Jeppiz (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 21:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Deleting content

Hello,

Here is the source: "According to historical records part, or perhaps the majority, of the Muslim Arabs in this country descended from local inhabitants, mainly Christians and Jews, who had converted after the Islamic conquest in the seventh century AD (Shaban 1971; Mc Graw Donner 1981). These local inhabitants, in turn, were descendants of the core population that had lived in the area for several centuries, some even since prehistorical times (Gil 1992)... Thus, our findings are in good agreement with the historical record..."

Where do you see genetic studies? It is according to historical records... Concerning the part or perhaps the majority, it is an undetermined number.

Concerning the source:Kacowicz, Arie Marcelo; Lutomski, Pawel (2007). Population Resettlement in International Conflicts: A Comparative Study. Lexington Books,. p. 194.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)

What exactly is the problem?

--... Point by point ... (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you express your views on the talk page of the article?

First modifcation: first, there is no reason to add this at the opening sentence without a source. Secondly, there was a discussion in the talk page, so if you could share your views, rather than reverting everything.

Second modification: deletion.

Do you disagree with the idea "that some argue that the Palestinian people form an [[ethnic group]"? Then why writting it at the first sentence? Or do you disagree with the second part? Please read the source. " Palestinian leaders claim that the Palestinians are descended from ancient people."

Why did you deleted this khalidi phrase but not the other? Why this one specifically? This quotation is accurate, look by yourself.

According to Rashid Khalidi, the Palestinian nationalism developed a historiography that "anachronistically read back into the history of Palestine over the past few centuries, and even millennia, a nationalist consciousness and identity that are in fact relatively modern.".

--... Point by point ... (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The little changes, were important, the point in the khalidi reference, differentiate two different references with the same name. And the date in the templates, is something important too, that you should not have deleted--... Point by point ... (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

References

October 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:47, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV violations

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Wahhabism with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. ⁓ Hello71 22:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Zionist political violence. Jeppiz (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

1 RR

You have violated the 1-revert per 24-hour restriction on Zionist political violence. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#General_1RR_restriction . Be more careful or you will blocked. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The view in that article I changed is not a factual or neutral one. I have a right to change it.

No, you don't, even if you believe you are right. Read the link I gave you. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBPIA block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of WP:1RR on the page Zionist political violence, you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "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."

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Lemondropzzz reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

ARBPIA violation

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of one month. 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. Jayron32 14:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

---

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."