Hi Mawlidman! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Mawlid. 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. — MusikAnimal talk 18:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
In light of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thehistorian1984, your filing of the above SPI was disruptive. I've deleted it. You risk being blocked if you do something similar again.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
do not revert again unless you want to be a vandal. Read Manuel Noriega, he was convicted well before. Besides, no "removal" needs citation; you need to cite that Noriega didn't predate. Good luck. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to have made some reverts lately on 14th Dalai Lama. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in a loss of editing privileges.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.92.125 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
.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. Katietalk 20:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@KrakatoaKatie: I'm not sure why i was so readily blocked here, after being reported by an obscure IP of all people, when i provided clear reasoning for all my reverts here and in the edit summaries here. Also, why wasn't i given the chance to defend myself from blocking? Could you unblock me and i will not return to simply reverting but will engage in discussions where necessary?
N.B.: one of those who argued for my blocking, Carlossuarez46, seems to have added his voice purely out of spite for being proven wrong. He agreed to my blocking even after i explained and appeared to convince him of the correctness of my edit here (he hasn't removed my article edit since my explanation). --Mawlidman (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arnab Goswami. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Vanamonde (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I responded at WP:BLPN to explain why the edit is unacceptable. Another point is that this edit asserts that an editor is performing "disruptive vandalism", but the word vandalism must not be used to describe unwanted edits. WP:VANDNOT defines what the term means at Wikipedia—"vandalism" must not be used in a situation like this. One reason for that is obvious—suppose your edit were reverted with summary "revert vandalism". How helpful would such a summary be? Would you revert the revert using the same edit summary? There has to be a reason to revert an edit, and "vandalism" is not an acceptable reason for cases outside those described at WP:VAND. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Badr Jafar, you may be blocked from editing.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mawlidman reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: ). Thank you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mawlidman reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. Muffled Pocketed 09:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Muffled Pocketed 10:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
.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. slakr\ talk / 04:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2017 Westminster attack. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.252.106 (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Although this article is being edited frequently to remove any false discrepancies, article expresses opinions of very few people including author mawlidman [[1]] and is written in an attacking tone citing "single statement" references from various books. Most of the references lead to Sikh holy book scriptures and it's meanings have been personally modified by the author in order to fit the article. Also note that this article has history of being edited through sock puppet accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exterminator1313 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Mawlidman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Mawlidman. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Greetings,
I was looking for article expansion help at articles like Islamic advice literature, Draft:Aurats (word) an article about historical linguistics and in article several sections are in need of expansion. Please do visit those articles as and when time permits you and pl. do help in article expansions if those topics interest you.
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)