User talk:Loverofediting

January 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Torah in Islam have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Torah in Islam was changed by Loverofediting (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.85449 on 2022-01-03T11:05:16+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loverofediting! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Dhu al-Qarnayn several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Dhu al-Qarnayn, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your addition that "Nowhere does Ibn Hisham refer to King Sa’b as being the specific Dhul Qarnayn referenced in the Qur’an." is not true. See Zadeh (2017, p.97),

Wahb b. Munabbih (d. ca 102/720) asks the Companion of the Prophet, Ibn 'Abbas (d. 68/687-8), about the identity of Dhu 'l-Qarnayn. Ibn 'Abbas responds that the hero mentioned in the Qur'an corresponds to al-Sa'b b. Dhi Marathid, ...

Sign. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 15:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dhu al-Qarnayn shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 19:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Alexander the Great. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please try to find out what reliable sources are saying before you change articles. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dhu al-Qarnayn. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fraxinetum. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 17:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Dhu al-Qarnayn

Hello Loverofediting. You seem to be edit warring. You may be blocked if you revert again at Dhu al-Qarnayn unless you have obtained a prior consensus for your change on the article talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You continued to revert the article here at 19:51 after my warning at 16:51 so I've issued a standard edit warring block. You've never posted on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply at Talk:Dhu al-Qarnayn

Hi Loverofediting! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Dhu al-Qarnayn several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Dhu al-Qarnayn, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 02:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thanks! ZackAshley (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Mu'awiya I. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your 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. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Loverofediting reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: ). Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]