Xelophate
Notice edit
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, 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.arbitation edit
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Hello you have posted on my talk page. You have said that I have discretionary sanctions on the topic I have edited ; Balkans. I have never edited this topic. i have edited Middle East. Can you please explain what you meant. thanks --XELO 13:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- Your dispute at the "Middle East" page has been related to you trying to push Greece within the scope of the Middle East page. Greece is undoubtedly a country in the Balkans, so your dispute is related to the Balkans. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: so I'm free to edit the balkans? what? i don't understand????
- Read what the alert message says. Yes, at this point you are free to edit anything you choose. The alert was just to make you aware that if you engage in further disruptive behaviour – similar to what you have shown in the "Middle East" topic up to now – you may fairly soon get topic-banned or blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Conspiracy. I do not make disruptive behaviour. I have tried to make contact via talk but have gone unanswered. I had to make edits without sorting it out on talk because the person Athenian does not answer on the talk. I have told him to sort it out with me on talk but he has ignored. I have not edit warred. It was Athenian.
@Future Perfect at Sunrise:--XELO 20:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
June 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 Talk: Main page. Removing the entire Talk: Main page for no obvious reason. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: I was archiving the talk page. it looked too cluttered. I was archiving it just like "Quack Guru" did to the page Larry Sanger. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_Sanger&action=history I reverted it as i thought the same as you, but then NeilN whom is stronger than you at the Wikimedia Ranks reverted it saying
03:02, 11 June 2015 NeilN (talk | contribs) . . (1,481 bytes) (-849) . . (Reverted 1 edit by Xelophate (talk): It's *archived* not deleted. (TW)) (undo | thank)
So, if you try to block me for this, I will take you to arbitation.
- QuackGuru actually archived the content. [1] --NeilN talk to me 00:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
so did i --XELO 01:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- No, you most certainly did not. All you did was delete the entire page content. [2] --NeilN talk to me 01:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
- There is no evidence here that you moved the content you deleted to the page's current archive. Nor should have you have done either one, because inactive conversations on that page are automatically and selectively archived by a bot (active conversations, i.e. those with recent editing activity, should remain on the page). If the page is "cluttered", it is because there are many active conversations going on, and you had no business removing these. General Ization Talk 01:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Greco-Turk Middle East Dispute request for arbitration edit
In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.
Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.
In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 05:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)