Revision as of 12:09, 15 April 2015 view sourceJimRenge (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,415 edits →Muhammad Iqbal: Referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:21, 15 April 2015 view source Ravensfire (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers88,562 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Sayeeda Baroness Warsi. (TW)Next edit → | ||
Line 214: | Line 214: | ||
:I noticed that you made a comment in that didn't seem very ]. Referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. ] (]) 12:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC) | :I noticed that you made a comment in that didn't seem very ]. Referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. ] (]) 12:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC) | ||
== April 2015 == | |||
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.{{Break}}''You are adding information to a ] article that is not supported by the sources and are not discussing the change after reverted. If you go past 3 reverts, you WILL be reported to the 3RR noticeboard for this. ''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:21, 15 April 2015
This is AHLM13's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Welcome!
Hello, AHLM13, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Getting started
- Introduction to Misplaced Pages
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Covenant-breaker may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- used by ] to refer to a particular form of what some might call "heresy". (Actually it refers to disunity: "The specific mission of Bahá'u'lláh relates to world unity. Since
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
AHLM13, you are invited to the Teahouse
Hi AHLM13! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. |
For Information
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
- You can see the discussion here. RomanSpa (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
you are in trouble
Hi ahlm13, i do not know why you are not answer me and delete the things that i wrote. The vandal gorgecurtesabte he deleted for another time the things that you wrote in sheikh abdul qayum. He deleted also my things. Can you add that s abdul qayum finished his phd? I will help you. Be careful in this talk an admin want block you. 109.154.90.200 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, for letting me know about this ridiculous conversation. However, assume good faith and refrain from making personal attacks on other wikipedians. AHLM13 talk 18:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
how are you
Hello friend, how are you? i hope you are fine. Sometime you use wikipedia and sometime you disappear, why? I have find that you did not undo gorgecurtesabre and ravensfire edits, but why? Because you are worried about edit warring, it seem that you are not brave. As I said before,then you did not add that s abdul qayum completed his phd, but you did other things, why? Anyway, leave it. There is also another article, elm, where gorgecurtesabre and usamahward vandals destryed it. Gorgucurtesabre wants to have many edits, infact he did more tha 20 thousand edits in wikipedia. Instead usamahward want be elm' boss, and he want to do whatever he want. He deleted all imams and abdul bari's name, then in "Prominent visitors" he moved mawlana sayeedi, yashir qadi and saad nomani's name from "imams" to "others notable visitors". All of them are vandalism. I leave you this article, please do something and try to help this article. Unfortunately, i can not wikipedia always, but i can user wikimedia for image like here. Tru to return quickly and try to look and user wikipedia for many times. Spend your times to do good things. Thank you, and see you! 109.157.151.48 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hi. I' am not sure whether you're still alive or not. I am perfectly fine and I am not afraid. I’ve already told you that I am very occupied, and Misplaced Pages isn’t my job. Actually, I'm fed up and tired of engaging in edit war on shaykh's article. As for the mosque, even this has been ruined by you and others. Be that as it may, I'll try to expand this article.
Just for curiosity's sake, are you really capable to contribute all of those languages? I suspect you utilize automatic translators (I can see from your english), surely you aren't capable to contribute with an INTERMEDIATE level of english language, as you've written on your userpage. AHLM13 talk 21:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
read up on WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN
On the London Central Mosque article, you reverted the Citation Needed tag saying "go to the park and have a look". Sorry, doesn't work that way. That's your opinion and your view and it doesn't mean much on Misplaced Pages - it's called original research. You need to have a good source, that meets the reliable source criteria that explicitly makes that claim that it's among the largest mosque's in Europe. That's it - that's all that's needed and I'll be happy. But you've got to have that source, it needs to be a good source and it needs to say that it's among the largest in Europe or really similar to that. Until you have a source that supports that claim, the citation needed tag needs to stay. Ravensfire (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- BTW - I helped you out a bit and started a talk page discussion on this to see if someone else might be able to find a source for this claim since you don't seem willing to support it. Your welcome. Ravensfire (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I do not have any anything versus you. Please do not revert those edits again. I do not have sufficient time to utilise wikipedia. The mosque is one of the largest, Abdul Qayum would be one of the greatest scholars, and the mosque serves the largest community. Everybody knows these and some sources have been provided. Please these pages. Cheers. AHLM13 talk 20:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you don't have the time to find sources, then don't add the claims. "Everybody knows" means the sources should be simple for you to find. You've been pointed to the talk page to discuss this but you haven't bothered. If you REALLY think a source is good enough, go to the reliable source noticeboard and ask there. You've been warned about edit-warring below, please take that seriously. Ravensfire (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Please leave me alone. What's wrong with you? Why should you consume your time on editing those articles. Even if you'right, leave them. Thank you! AHLM13 talk 21:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- AHLM13, the issue is you are making unsupported claims. That needs to stop. It's as simple as that. I see by your actions you don't care. I'm sorry to see that. I've got a meeting, so I'd like to give you an opportunity to revert your last edits and discuss this on the article talk page before I file a report on WP:EWN. Your decision on this. Ravensfire (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Ravensfire, regardless to the mosque's one, I haven't reverted, even though it should be. Others should be fine. AHLM13 talk 21:07, 20 February 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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AHLM13 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: ). Thank you. Ravensfire (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry it went to this, but without the willingness to address concerns raised by others, ignoring sourcing requirements and no discussions in an attempt to seek a consensus on the matters raised, there is no other option. Ravensfire (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Khalifa Ezzat sourcing
AHLM13, I took a quick glance at this article and there are some sourcing problems that existed from before your edits. You added a couple of sources in the education section and I appreciate that. I removed an existing source () which is a blog and those rarely make good sources for Misplaced Pages. See the WP:SPS page for blogs in general. For material about a living person (often called WP:BLP here), blogs are even more restricted for their use - see the WP:BLPSPS page. On top of that, going to that page gives an error message and there really doesn't look like that blog has anything. I've removed the blog (used twice as a source). Any chance you might know of a better source for what the blog was used for? I think it was the last two sentences in the lead.
I'd love to find some sourcing for the rest - where the articles were published and ISBN numbers for the translations and books would be awesome. If you know of any, would you mind adding it? Even just bare links or raw ISBN and I can clean it up later. Ravensfire (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring at London Central Mosque
As an admin, I have studied the open complaint about you at WP:AN3#User:AHLM13 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: ). The most obvious case of your edit warring is at London Central Mosque. You want it to be one of the largest mosques in Europe but you don't want to provide a citation. What is worse, you remove the 'citation needed' tag, and you accuse Ravensfire of following you around. This has been going on since 20 February. I am considering blocking your account unless you will accept restoration of the citation needed tag and give up this war. If you will agree to this, you can reply at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston, I gave up. I haven't undid that edit. Thanks. AHLM13 talk 11:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have closed the AN3 report with a warning, but without a block based on your agreement to concede the point about London Central Mosque being one of the largest, a claim which was unsourced. Nonetheless you have another issue to deal with at Abdul Qayum (imam). You have stated he is one of the most influential Muslim scholars of Great Britain but your sources appear to be inadequate. Others have pointed this out on the talk page. If this matter is discussed further you will be expected to defer to the WP:Verifiability policy. If you have questions about the usability of a source, you can ask at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Reverting User's Edits to Own TP
Users are always allowed to modify their unblock requests and other items on their TP as long as they are not libelous or attacking. Remember WP:OWNTALK. EoRdE6
March 2015
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Tariq Jameel, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. -AsceticRosé 03:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Reliable sources
AHLM13, please take some time to read up on reliable sources and identifying reliable sources. You used the promo blurb for an event () as a source. There's zero change that meets the criteria for a reliable source. Blurbs for events are entirely promotional and self-serving, especially for significant claims. Using a blurb like that to say X is a member of Y board is okay. Anything beyond that is not okay. On top of that, the source you gave would be time-dependent and would disappear after the event resulting in a dead source that still couldn't be used. Please, take a bit of time to learn how to identify good reliable sources. If you've got a question about a source, I encourage you to use the Reliable Source Noticeboard, explaining the source, where you're using it and how you'll use it to get advice from other editors. Ravensfire (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
- And expecting the usual reaction, I've created a talk page section specifically to address the sources you used. The talk page section is Talk:Abdul Qayum (imam)#Largest Bangladeshi claim sources. Please discuss the issues raised there before reverting. You'll note that as a compromise I've left the claim in the article hoping good sources can be found. It's tagged as needing a cite because it does need a good source for that claim. Ravensfire (talk) 20:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
March 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Tariq Jameel. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. The popular spelling is "Maulana", and not "Mawlana". The content you removed is an information supported by reliable sources. -AsceticRosé 00:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Reply
Wa alaikum Assalam. Thank you for your mail. I've read it. However, I prefer privacy.
Meanwhile, please familiarize yourself with WP:VANDAL and WP:CIVIL. -AsceticRosé 00:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I see you were warned well previously by an administrator, on 23 June 2014, against using the word "vandal" so frequently. But I see this again from you. It seems you have made it a habit.
If you use it one more time, I'll have to report. -AsceticRosé 01:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
User:AsceticRose, what a shame! Even you were blocked from editing! -- AHLM13 talk 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Asian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Mittal
The source you are using from 2007 only claims Britain. If that's all the source says, that's all we can say on Misplaced Pages. If you find a better source, especially one more current, that says wealthiest Hindu and Indian person in Britain, Europe and/or Western World, go for it! But until then, the article has to reflect exactly what the source claims. Also, when you're using a source that 8 years old for something like wealth ranking, you really need to date it. Those rankings change easily, especially given we've had a world-wide recession between 2007 and now. We need to include the year of that ranking for WP:NPOV purposes. Not putting it would be to push a POV. Ravensfire (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
There is not any richest person like him. I don't care about the sources. Everybody knows that he'd be richest Asian.-- AHLM13 talk 14:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, that's right. I should remember that you are a WP:RS after all. You always are correct, never POV push and never, ever exaggerate sources. Oh wait. Damn. April Fools was a few days ago. I guess I'll just have to say that was sarcasm. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
April fool is created for the purpose to offend Muslims-- AHLM13 talk 17:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Please don't do this again
Please don't do this again. Telling an editor who's reverted one of your edits to stay off an article is absolutely unacceptable. Fortunately, you said that to an apparently experienced editor who will treat your demand with all the respect it deserves, but you could easily scare off a new editor which would be unfortunate. You do not control articles, nor does anyone else. You need to use the talk page for discussion when an edit of yours gets reverted rather than just revert over and over. Ravensfire (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
April 2015
Hello, I'm Ravensfire. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Birmingham Central Mosque that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Misplaced Pages needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Don't insult other editors in the edit summary. You need to focus on the edits and how the edit comply with the policies and guidelines on Misplaced Pages and stop focusing as much on the editors. Ravensfire (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Please reconsider
Hello AHLM13. I am writting this in relation to two of your edits and summaries here &. Maybe you are unfamiliar but per WP:BURDEN which is policy, you may only re-add information if it is accompanied by a reliable source. This has not been done. Secondly and on a more serious note, the comments in the edit summary constitute a personal attack against GorgeCustersSabre. I ask you to reconsider your actions and in the future please refrain from attacking an editor. Rather the focus should be on content. Regards. Mbcap (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Claim re East London Mosque is not in the reference cited
You have cited Kratke's Transnationalism and Urbanism (p 145) for a claim that had been disputed before in many places on Misplaced Pages. You have used that citation in several articles: London, Islam in England, Islam in the United Kingdom, Religion in England, Religion in the United Kingdom and East London Mosque. The reference does not support the claim, that the East London Mosque was "the first mosque in the European Union to be permitted to broadcast the adhan" - it just briefly recounts disputes over allowing the adhan in 1986. On being reverted, you have re-inserted the claim, in one case with the edit summary "see the source" and in other cases with no edit summary. Do read WP:BRD; you need to open discussion on talk pages to justify your edits when they are corrected or reverted, not simply click undo. I have now opened those discussions. NebY (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Final warning
Since you were advised not to use the word vandal any more, you haven't used that, but your personal attacks on other editors in talk-pages and in edit summaries now seem to cross the limit which constitute a severe breach of one of Misplaced Pages’s core policies, namely civility. I’ve hardly seen a foul-tongued editor like you. Equally disturbing is your stubbornness to not listen to others' repeated advices to comply with Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines in case of editing articles.
Hadith says that it is the misuse of tongue that will take people in hell in more numbers than any other vices. Theologically, it is quite prohibited to call other Muslims munafiq or similar things. Never assume a self-righteous manner. Eventually, you have to take into account Misplaced Pages policies, and behave yourself if you want to continue editing here.
Take this as final notice. If any more abusive language is issued from you, either in talk-pages or in edit summaries, either in English or in other language (as is here), or your stubbornness to ignore Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines continues, it may result in others' requesting a topic ban for you.
While your contributions are appreciated, you are also required to understand others' concerns. Anyone can't always edit in their own way.
Everybody related here is requested to see Community bans and restrictions. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 01:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ascetic, you're right that it's prohibited to call others Munafiq, but in this case I was right. Look at the differences between your contributions and GorgeCustersSabre's one. It's simple to understand who would be Mu'min and who would be Munafiq.-- AHLM13 talk 10:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Personal attacks
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Personal attacks. 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:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. After calling someone a munafiq (hypocrite) in an edit summary ('I want a Munafiq like you to find reliable sources'), you have continued to use that terminology here on your talk page. Your page is on my watchlist because you previously had to be warned for making unsourced changes, per an AN3 complaint. Name-calling against people who ask you to provide sources for your edits fits into that pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Let’s have a fresh start
So, there has been a good deal of hurly-burly here in the past few days. Ok, forget about that and let you have a fresh start, this time in a proper fashion. I believe you've got new insight in these days.
Regarding your munafiq point in your last comment, I again say that, unless it is a very special case, it is totally prohibited to call anyone munafiq, first because terms like this are mainly used in academic and theological fields to distinguish certain types of people (and not for general name-calling), and second because God hasn't given us the power to look into anyone's heart to know exactly… . And hence, He prohibits us to use such terms in general purpose. For example, the term autistic people is used to distinguish certain medically conditioned people, and not to insult them by calling them by that mane.
In Islamic history, Abdullah Ibn Ubay was the most publicly known munafiq, often making plots against the newly established Islamic state. And that was a real-life situation. Yet there is no record that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did ever call him munafiq. The Prophet even led Ubay’s funeral prayer, and furnished Ubay's dead body with his own shirt. Why all this? It was the noble character and the great civility that the Prophet himself cultivated and taught us the same. And we? Upon Mecca conquest, he, with a smiling face and without slightest hesitation, forgave all those who for 23 years rebelled against him and planned to murder him. And we? We readily ignore these teachings at slightest provocations.
We are here, on earth, to behave well with ALL human beings, irrespective of their caste, color, and ideology. We are absolutely not here to decide who is an infidel, or who is a believer, or who is a munafiq. This belongs to God. Yes, everybody has there own personal understanding/perception as to who is who, but that should not cross the limit.
And, we are not here on Misplaced Pages to categorize who is who. We are here to improve articles. If an editor deletes any unsourced claim/data, or demands for a reliable source for the content added by you, you can't blame them for that. These are according to Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. It's your duty to provide a reliable source for your content, and not just a source. You need to familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines.
If you still think that somebody's approach is problematic, there are ways to handle them. Name-calling is not the option. I see others are very cooperative with you. So, you should not miss that last chance. Thanks. -AsceticRosé 17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I also admit that I was a little bit rude initially. I do apologize for that. I believe AHLM13 will consider. -AsceticRosé 00:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Jazakallahkhaair my brother in Islam for having taught some lessons. I apologise as well and ask forgiveness to Allah azza wa jal. We need to work together in Misplaced Pages, and one of the main purpose is giving Da'wa. I will send an email, please respond at that. Shukran -- AHLM13 talk 15:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
April 2015
- Do not revert without any legitimate reasons, my edit on Muhammad Iqbal were not the vandalism, I am the main edito of this article, how can I do that. Read the policies before reverting. If you have any concerns discuss on the talk page. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It was vandalism. What do you mean by "main editor"? Have you bought this article? -- AHLM13 talk 15:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
April 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Muhammad Iqbal. 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, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
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. Justice007 (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
A note on the term "vandalism"
AHLM13, please take a few moments to read WP:VANDAL. Vandalism on Misplaced Pages has a very specific meaning that's often different from how it's used in other places. Basically, unless it's blatant vandalism that's intended to harm Misplaced Pages, you should describe edits as vandalism. In particular, edits made in good faith by another editor that you disagree with should NEVER be called vandalism. Using the term incorrectly can be considered a personal attack, especially if it's repeated. For example, this edit is clearly not vandalism as Misplaced Pages uses the term. Please, be very careful with how you're using the term going forward. Thanks, Ravensfire (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hey, read TideRolls comment on my talk page about their comment below and mine - I appreciated his comment and the sentiment behind it that they didn't want to appear like they were piling on. Please do consider that someone totally unconnected from this is also noticing some of the same concerns that others have raised. Ravensfire (talk) 03:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Muhammad Iqbal
You did not revert vandalism with this edit. Please acquaint yourself with WP:Vandalism; to apply that description to an edit that is not is improper. Additionally, please read WP:Edit warring and WP:BRD. Once you have been reverted you are obligated to take your case to the article talk page to seek consensus. Tiderolls 21:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It appears as a vandalism, although she is an experienced user. -- AHLM13 talk 09:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I noticed that you made a comment in this edit summary that didn't seem very civil. Referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. JimRenge (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
April 2015
Your recent editing history at Sayeeda Baroness Warsi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are adding information to a WP:BLP article that is not supported by the sources and are not discussing the change after reverted. If you go past 3 reverts, you WILL be reported to the 3RR noticeboard for this. Ravensfire (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)