User talk:Markus W. Karner

You cannot simply bulk remove facts using such petty excuses as "promotion of one source above others". Your mass content removal smacks of ulterior motive. This is not promotion of one source above others—I didn't delete any info or sources; i merely added info where it was lacking. The fact that a large amount of info was taken from this source does not inherently disqualify its inclusion. The source has every right to be cited. As a supposed NGO in Myanmar, you should be showing more compassion to such a persecuted minority in the country. Or do you also tow the Buddhist chauvinist version of events?58.106.230.133 (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You say: ''this sensationalist view is not found in any other page. Please don't push the views to extreme'''. What do you even mean?! Tell me what is the "sensationalist view"? Do you even know what you are arguing against?! Unless you give specific reasons for your opposition, i will simply revert your bulk content removal and if you do not then desist i will report your disruptive actions.58.106.252.62 (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been given ample chance to properly explain the rationale for your bulk removal of content; however, you have not responded with any specific issues. Therefore, i will report your vandalism if you repeat your content removal.58.106.252.62 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Rohingya people. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Ogress smash! 00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Rohingya people
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The full report is at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)