Please read the banner "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" at the head of Talk:Demographics of Palestine. You just broke the 1RR restriction, for which can be blocked. Next time you will be reported, this is your only warning. You will probably be reported for disruptive editing soon anyway. Zero^talk 01:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was 18 minutes short. Whoops.

You are being disruptive if you think you can threaten people who don't have the same worldview as you.Modinyr (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are being reported for violation of arbitration restrictions on I-P articles. Your case file will appear at WP:AE in a few minutes. You can reply to the charges there. Zero^talk 00:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. T. Canens (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

This is for the 1RR violation reported in this AE thread. T. Canens (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a broader note, admins tend to patrol the behavioral lines in all matters related to the Arab-Israeli conflict aggressively. This topic area is rife with interpersonal conflict, and it is therefore imperative that all editors be on their very best behavior. If you do not believe that the paragraph belongs in the article, you may initiate a discussion at the talk page to try to obtain a consensus for your version, or, if that fails, try any of our dispute resolution processes. What you may not do, however, is edit warring. In fact, while the discussion is ongoing, you should not be making any revert at all.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

T. Canens (talk) 01:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Modinyr, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Learn from others
• Be kind to others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us a bit about yourself
• Our great guide to Wikipedia

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! Shrike (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of conflicts in I/P topics. Listen to what other users say to you.Espicially admins.If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask--Shrike (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find your editing at Mahmoud Darwish incredibly obstructionist. The source is clear; the village was obliterated -- whether the word is destroyed, etc., is a detail; if you want to change the detail, fine, but repeatedly removing all reference to the deed begins to makes it sound like you are interested in covering up the act rather than accurately reporting it. Please show that you are interested in an honest picture by not constantly reverting, but rather honing the wording. hgilbert (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The truth, you don't know the truth. The newspaper article's bio is sketchy at best. You are twisting it into making the political statement you want. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of things Hgilbert thinks internet users should know. Modinyr (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]