Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ahmadiyya. 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, 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. DBigXray 10:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
or
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you I am such a Newb when it comes to wikipedia. Much appreciated (Steeringly (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC))
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ahmadiyya. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. You know this is being discussed, you know that you don't have consensus, and you know that you've been told that this is not NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ahmadiyya. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Doug, What exactly are you referring too? I think your potentially exercising an abuse of your position to limit legitimate changes. Can you cite any wikirules that corroborate this, as I am unclear what I have done? How do I report the potential bias of an administrator? (Steeringly (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC))
Hi Doug, I have shown that the article itself confirms that the Ahmadiyya are specifically Heterodox, I have evidenced this from the Ahmadiyya website and other sources. (Steeringly (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC))
Thank you I am sure you are right regarding Doug. Clearly he is a valuable contributer. Regards (Steeringly (talk) 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC))
DBigXray has given you a dove! Doves promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day happier. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a dove, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past (this fits perfectly) or a good friend. Cheers!
Spread the peace of doves by adding ((subst:Peace dove)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.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. v/r - TP 13:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Steeringly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have fully explained my reasons why this is not edit warring in our detailed conversations in the Talk page and also the Islam page. if you look through the history of the conversations it was agreed that whilst controversial it was a legitimate entry. By definition it is not edit warring The administrator should be warned for not being objective instead he is militantly protecting an article from scholarly amendments. I have explained at length the reason for the changes and have a full grounding in the area of both Islam and Ahmadiyya. I have not requested Islamic be removed from the article after discussion that self identity is enough to go against consensus. I have simply tried to add a scholarly amendment which supports the flow of the article.Steeringly (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You evidently think that repeatedly reverting is not edit warring as long as your edits are "right". In addition to your statement above, on the article talk page you wrote "I believe this is exempt under the guidelines of WP:EW as I have clearly demonstrated that the article contrary to your assertions is improved by the changes. I believe you are incorrectly citing the 3RR rule when a contributor is trying to make legitimate change to an article." However, edit warring is repeatedly reverting, and the fact that you are convinced that your edits were right does not stop it being edit warring. In fact, the policy on edit warring would be meaningless if it said "unless you believe you are right", as in almost all edit wars all the participants believe they are right. Edit wars usually involve two or more editors who all believe that they are "trying to make legitimate change to an article."JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
"Uninvolved" but close associate. I agree you are right Heterodox is inappropriate. I am understanding more about what is and isnt acceptable for WP. People make mistakes and I genuinely am trying to make acceptable change to the article. I have to point out that you are incorrect Doug some of the links affirmed my statement, others I agree suggested it was the opinion of Muslims. I hadnt participated on [{WP:NPOVN]] as I wasn't aware it was there. Treat me like a new student regarding WP otherwise of course I will miss certain things. My only edits relate to this article as I am new to WP. I can edit a few other things if it helps. Where can I read more about consensus? (Steeringly (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC))
Where can I read more about consensus?All the links you need to know are here on User_talk:Steeringly#Your_recent_edits--DBigXray 08:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Steeringly (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead. I more clearly understand the issue of why Heterodox is inappropriate language without specifying who believes it. It is not for WP to categorically state what is and is not Heterodox
Decline reason:
This is a copy-paste of part of the instructions for appealing a block, followed by a sentence which has nothing to do with edit-warring, which is the reason for your block. There is nothing here that would be a reason to overturn a valid block. 48 hours is not a long time; while you wait for your block to expire, you could carefully read the rules about edit-warring, which will help you when you return. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Boing boing boing... Sorry I didnt make my self clear, I understood the reasons for my block. The only reason I was edit warring as I know it now was, was because of the use of the word heterodox. I understood that it was unacceptable to use heterodox and therefore the reason for my edit warring was removed, and I now fully comprehend the reason edit warring is inapropriate and counter productive. But nonetheless thanks anyway (Steeringly (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC))
Hello Steeringly. I have got involved in the debate on the talk page for this article which you have probably seen. When your block expires, can I suggest you calmly make a suggestion there about some alternative to using the word "heterodox", which I now see can't be used in that way in the lead paragraph (because Wikipedia itself is not in a position to rule on what is orthodox/heterodox in a religion). Also if you can explain what you intend, other editors may be able to help to arrive at a consensus.
If you just continue with re-inserting the word you likely be blocked again.
Thanks Mcewan (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Mcewan, I appreciate your advice. As someone new to wikipedia I suppose I need to learn the correct procedures, then actually adhere to them. Otherwise WP would be a mess I suppose. It's incredibly frustrating to simply have administrators and wikipedians who have personal reasons to protect a page and users blocking any suggestion of change without coming up with any alternative or compromise. I can appreciate why heterodox cannot be used in this article, despite it being sanctified by the Ahmadiyya Muslims themselves. Equally so I raised the question of the legitimacy of calling them an Islamic revival movement which is clearly in breach of NPOV because it is stating categorically and not raising the wealth of opinions evidence both primary and secondary to the contrary. The cited evidence for the quotation I elaborately unravelled as weak by Simon Valentine. That aside I think perhaps we could move forward with "Minority" Islamic Revival Movement. That wouldnt appear to be in breach of NPOV as they are clearly a minority group according to all major sources. So far people have refused to enter into discussion, then other people are contacted who know very little about the issue who simply take the side of the administrator without any knowledge simply because I am new to WP. I have a genuine interest in balancing the article but no one else is suggesting any kind of change. (Steeringly (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2012 (UTC))
Sorry Doug. My time in the Sin Bin has given my overactive imagination time to cool off. I have read the rules over a few times and hopefully will contribute to consensus. (Steeringly (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC))
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Ahmadiyya. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 22:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)