` == Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus ==  Regarding the explanation for your recent edit, I would be interested to know what makes you believe you should get your own way until discussion is settled. This source is a new addition to the encyclopedia which has been challenged by a number of editors. Normal practice would dictate that it stays out pending consensus.    :And further, that article is subject to a 1RR, a rule that you violated on 2 February. I didnt report it because I generally think highly of you as an editor and wasnt looking to create drama, but repeated reverts can be reported. ' -   == Globalize ==  You added the Globalize template to Jewish views on marriage. Why?    :I will respond on the talk page.      == Henry George ==  If Henry George ran on that ticket, which he did, I think it is worth mentioning in the text about Jeffersonian democracy. He may well not have been a very typical Jeffersonian Democrat, but the ticket had that name.    :I disagree.  Just because he named himself after Jefferson doesn't mean it has anything necessarily to do with the concept of Jeffersonian democracy.      ==Article Feedback deployment== Hey GHcool; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does ). Thanks,     == Israeli–Palestinian conflict ==  Can you please explain this removal? Do you consider the article in its current version is plenty of sources?'   :As of this writing, there are 238 sources.  I don't think the article lacks sources.     ::Right from the start, the ″History″ section is plagued of unsourced paragraphs. I'm reinstating the  tag. You do not own the article.'   :::Why not just tag the history section instead of the whole article?    ::::I chose not to tagbomb the article, but to place a single tag at the top of the page to notice everyone the article is in need of more sourcing. You removed the  tag again, even when there are unsourced sentences/paragraphs all over the article. This unilateral action shows that you think you own the article, as I said above. Do reinstate the tag or I will seek dispute resolution to solve this issue.'   :::::Either write {{cn}} next to the sentences you feel ought to be cited or tag the section.  Don't tag the whole article.      == Request to self-revert ==  This edit is a clear breach of the 1RR restriction on articles relating to the Arab-Israel conflict. I request that you revert yourself; if you do not do so, I will request that approproiate action uis taken under WP:ARBPIA.     == Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions ==  I believe with your latest edit you are in violation of 1rr and I will file a report if you do not self revert. Aside from the 1rr violation I believe that your activity on the page violates WP:NOTADVOCATE. It is difficult to explain how you can justify filling the article with advocacy sources used for claims against third parties on the one hand, while on the other deleting reliably sourced information cited to a third party academic source on the other giving only your own opinion on the topic as justification for deletion. this edit pattern is not consistent with the policies and the purposes of the encyclopaedia.    :For the record the academic source supporting the content you deleted (~citing your own unsupported opinion) states: ``The BDS is a global movement which works in peaceful ways to create political and economic pressure on Israel...``    ::I've just quoted the source directly.  Thanks.     :::You also deleted an academic source and associated information without explanation. Again it is difficult to think of a good faith explanation for your edit pattern on this page: repeatedly deleting academic scholarship on the topic while at the same time adding lots of activist sources you are using inappropriately for claims against third parties. Also deleting the academic source that I just added is a revert. Undoing one revert while at the same time reverting separate material still means you are in violation of 1rr. Again if you do not self revert the unexplained deletion of the academic source I will be filling a report.    ::::Whoops, I sincerely apologize.  I meant to only edit the 1st paragraph, not the second.  I don't know how it happened.  I will revert immediately.     :::::Your latest edit to the page is in violation of 1rr. If you read the cited sources you will see that the text is supported by the sources. e.g.: ``Acts of protest and persuasion (such as boycotts and strikes), and direct intervention (including civil disobedience) characterize some of the most visible non-violent tactics in Palestine and elsewhere. This book focuses primarily on mobilization related to these direct actions, but also explores indirect actions, including civil society initiatives and everyday acts of resistance, which characterised broader sphere of non-violence in Palestine...`` (My emphasis) :::::Your pattern of editing seems to indicate that you are not reading the sources that have been cited, but instead editing from your own personal opinion on the topic. WP:NPOV says that we represent sources not opinions of editors.    ::::::I regret to inform you that Palestine only exists on some sort of theoretical level.  One can speak of the Palestinian territories (as I indicated in the edit you reference) or of the State of Israel and the Palestinian territories (the Hamas definition).      == 1RR breach ==  In case you hadn't noted, this edit is in breach of the article's strict one revert policy, since you have made a previous revert today here. In fact, several of your recent edits to this article are borderline edit-warring. I request that you revert your latest edit. If you do not do so, I will submit a report to the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.    :I don't understand.  The two edits you mention are completely different.  Please explain.     ::Someone should file an AE case against this editor. I have never filled one in but I will if no-one else does and the editor does not self revert. Consistently ignoring basic principles of editing and the 1rr restrictions is not acceptable for an experienced editor in the IP topic area.    :::The 1