User talk:Iphone4 hateparents

February 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Yosef Mizrachi, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2017 (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 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. Doug Weller talk 05:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV violation removing all critical text from lead, leaving it unbalanced

The WP:Lead is meant to summarise the article, but I think you know that. "The lead is the first part of the article that most people will read. For many, it may be the only section that they read" "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" You removed all the text that was critical of Gatestone, leaving nothing in the lead reflecting the criticism section. There's no problem with it being a copy of a sentence or two in the body of the article. Please don't do this again. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistent tendentious editing, specifically repeated removal of well-sourced material from the lead of Counter-jihad (edit warring against several editors without using the talkpage). 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | talk 10:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)