| Revision as of 08:59, 16 February 2014 editيوسف حسين (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users875 edits →Edit Warring: Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:01, 16 February 2014 edit undoيوسف حسين (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users875 edits →Edit Warring: Ta'izzi-Adeni ArabicNext edit → | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
| I see that there have been an alarming number of reports on you at ], some of which have not been closed. I have seriously considered combining them into one longer block, but instead I have decided to just give you a block for 48 hours, which is what I would have done had there been only the one case I have referred to since your previous block. However, if you continue to edit war on numerous articles, you may well be blocked for considerably longer next time, and it may not be long before you are blocked indefinitely. Please do not edit war. ] (]) 17:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | I see that there have been an alarming number of reports on you at ], some of which have not been closed. I have seriously considered combining them into one longer block, but instead I have decided to just give you a block for 48 hours, which is what I would have done had there been only the one case I have referred to since your previous block. However, if you continue to edit war on numerous articles, you may well be blocked for considerably longer next time, and it may not be long before you are blocked indefinitely. Please do not edit war. ] (]) 17:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::{{Reply to|JamesBWatson}} Well i do not think that's fair. Yes i have been reported several times by the same people. I admit that i was engaged in edit warring in Yemen and the ] but if you take a closer look at their contributions you would realize that they were edit warring themselves. They attempted to evade detection by editing over a long period of time (one day maximum), and i know that this constitute disruptive editing. They first accused me of having multiple accounts by placing numerous false warnings on my main and talk page, they failed to cite sources to push their minority point of view. They were ] on a number of articles, deleting properly cited information to push their minority point of view especially user ''Midday express '' who have been reported before on his edits in Yemen's related articles. That user is engaged in original research and is unwilling to reach census on any article, Because i objected his editing, he and his groupies accused me of a "racial overtone". He repeatedly disregarded my explanations for the edits i make and i even deleted some passages he objected from the articles although they were in the books i cited, because i did not want to prolong the discussion. I can give you specific examples if you want. I am not familiar with reporting editors process but it's likely that i will soon. I am not objecting this |
::{{Reply to|JamesBWatson}} Well i do not think that's fair. Yes i have been reported several times by the same people. I admit that i was engaged in edit warring in Yemen and the ] but if you take a closer look at their contributions you would realize that they were edit warring themselves. They attempted to evade detection by editing over a long period of time (one day maximum), and i know that this constitute disruptive editing. They first accused me of having multiple accounts by placing numerous false warnings on my main and talk page, they failed to cite sources to push their minority point of view. They were ] on a number of articles, deleting properly cited information to push their minority point of view especially user ''Midday express '' who have been reported before on his edits in Yemen's related articles. That user is engaged in original research and is unwilling to reach census on any article, Because i objected his editing, he and his groupies accused me of a "racial overtone". He repeatedly disregarded my explanations for the edits i make and i even deleted some passages he objected from the articles although they were in the books i cited, because i did not want to prolong the discussion. I can give you specific examples if you want. I am not familiar with reporting editors process but it's likely that i will resort to that very soon. I am not objecting this block i was indeed engaged in edit warring but i do not think you telling that i could be banned from editing is fair, and you have to observe and monitor their edits as well.--] (]) 08:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 09:01, 16 February 2014
 Archives |
Welcome
Hello, يوسف حسين, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Simplified Manual of Style
We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yemen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albanian (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) 09:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Mukarrib for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mukarrib is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Mukarrib until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
AN
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Middayexpress (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Najahid dynasty (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Abyssinian
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2014 (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. Thank you. Middayexpress (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Edit Warring: Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. Thank you AcidSnow (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I see that there have been an alarming number of reports on you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, some of which have not been closed. I have seriously considered combining them into one longer block, but instead I have decided to just give you a block for 48 hours, which is what I would have done had there been only the one case I have referred to since your previous block. However, if you continue to edit war on numerous articles, you may well be blocked for considerably longer next time, and it may not be long before you are blocked indefinitely. Please do not edit war. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
- @JamesBWatson: Well i do not think that's fair. Yes i have been reported several times by the same people. I admit that i was engaged in edit warring in Yemen and the Ta'izzi-Adeni Arabic but if you take a closer look at their contributions you would realize that they were edit warring themselves. They attempted to evade detection by editing over a long period of time (one day maximum), and i know that this constitute disruptive editing. They first accused me of having multiple accounts by placing numerous false warnings on my main and talk page, they failed to cite sources to push their minority point of view. They were WP:TEND on a number of articles, deleting properly cited information to push their minority point of view especially user Midday express who have been reported before on his edits in Yemen's related articles. That user is engaged in original research and is unwilling to reach census on any article, Because i objected his editing, he and his groupies accused me of a "racial overtone". He repeatedly disregarded my explanations for the edits i make and i even deleted some passages he objected from the articles although they were in the books i cited, because i did not want to prolong the discussion. I can give you specific examples if you want. I am not familiar with reporting editors process but it's likely that i will resort to that very soon. I am not objecting this block i was indeed engaged in edit warring but i do not think you telling that i could be banned from editing is fair, and you have to observe and monitor their edits as well.--يوسف حسين (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)