IsraeliPalestinian conflict protect   Yesterday there were relevent and reliablysourced casualty figures added to the IsraeliPalestinian conflict article and some editors objected to this It seems you were called in to quickly protect the page from editing effectively blocking the inclusion of the figures You cited edit warring the more accurate term would be repeated reverts from those who did not like the figures for political reasons There are casualty figures in all the conflict war battle etc Wiki articles I have referenced why not this one Thanks    RomaC the edits which you tried to make were a set of statistics for one year only which you attemepted to place in the first paragraph of an article describing a conflict of over sixty years This article covers an issue of extreme sensitivity and complexity The fact that your edits sparked so much conflict and opposition speaks for itself Here at Wikipedia we value the ability to achieve consensus and to be fair to many viewpoints And believe it or not we often do achieve that at the article IsraeliPalestinian conflict It is not enough to disinegnuously claim that your figures were reliable without addressing any of the underlying issues or any of the conflicts which it clearly and immediately caused   To repeat statistics for just one year of the conflict do not belong anywhere in the articles lead there are a wide variety of figures which either side could quote all in the name of objectivity which would clear and unacceptably attempt to create a slant towards one side or the other please note this is why we are careful when making edit to be sure that we actually have consensus rather than simply telling others that they should provide consensus     I strongly object to your calling me disinegnuous sic You wrote on the article talk page that you agreed with Hertz who argued that the statistics might be biased Do you not regard Haaretz as a reliable source Please explain more clearly why you feel that citing reliablysourced and uptodate civilian casualty statistics in an article about a war battle or conflict is disingenuous If you or any other editor want to add more statistics covering a longer time period then go ahead but do not delete relevant content added by other editors Yes the edit sparked so much conflict and opposition but note also also that here at Wikipedia we do not determine what is fair through intimidation by numbers There is a big difference between consensus and false compromise     I apologize if you felt I was offending you in any way i only meant to describe the appearance of your edits not to describe you personally in any way if other editors deleted some edits it is because they genuinely felt there was a reason to do so and that the material was not beneficial or fair to the article I responded to your concerns and issues further at the article talk page thanks      Apology accepted and I will also make my further comments on the article talk page I am not a singleissue editor I get around a bit on Wiki saw the Haaretz report and very much believe it is something very relevant to the article I cant say I know for certain why other editors deleted the material I try to assume good faith well see    repeated reverts from those who did not like the figures for political reasons  motive doesnt really matter its still edit warring its still disruptive Protection is not an endorsement of the current version   The subject of this article is a deadly conflict the lede is huge  and yet it contains no mention of the casualties Clearly there is something seriously wrong As a result your action here while wellintentioned looks highly partisan Worse than that it looks rather like like a cynical move to protect deniers those who wish to cover up atrocities the mass killings of mostly unarmed civilians in many cases recognised by Western sources as warcrimes If the events at this article really offend you it would be a lot better to lock it at the alternative version