I'm leaving you this manual message as you claim to be aware of the WP:CTOP of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Your recent edits are showing a clear attempt to push a POV. I am especially concerned by your edit on the article Palestine (region), where you are pushing for Palestine to be recognized as a state. That is clearly POV pushing and, appropriately, another editor has already reverted you.
I am writing to you here to encourage you to be very cautious in this topic area. If you continue your POV pushing edits against a very large consensus and/or without seeking consensus first, it is highly likely someone will seek sanctions against you for your editing in this area. I don't like seeing editors sanctioned - I really don't. Hence why I'm reaching out to ask you nicely to please cool it and consider your edits more rather than going on a spree of making changes to many other articles to try and push your POV. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!04:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i completely refute your accusation of POV pushing.
I made this edit [1] because its confusing to say just Palestine in Palestine (region) ( there needs to be distinction - you cannot use the same word to refer to something else)
Another editor - improved my edit here [2] ( obviously they agree )
I didn't think it was good - so i made edit here [3]
Remsense is commenting on that one edit. I'm commenting on your behavior in this topic area as a whole. I've done you the favor of giving you a warning here that if you continue this clear POV pushing behavior across half a dozen or more articles in this topic area, I will be requesting sanctions under CTOP procedures. It's up to you whether you heed that warning or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!04:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of what POV pushing is. You are welcome to do whatever you think is right. I'll do what I think is right.
You reverted the edits on a "technicality" of not having an edit summary. That is edit warring. You should've gone to the talkpage when your edits were reverted and sought a consensus. Especially in a contentious topic. You then went to that editor's talk page and made baseless accusations against them just because you didn't like that they didn't use an edit summary. That's not appropriate behavior. The appropriate behavior was to go to the talkpage(s) and seek consensus to reinstate your edits. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me!05:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I initially didn't use tendentious editing in the title; it was changed later.
I apologized to Closetside prematurely calling it as tendentious editing [5] - but Berchanhimez is still attacking me for that on my talk Cinaroot (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
