User talk:69.144.111.231

May 2020
Hello, I'm AaqibAnjum. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Muhammad Qasim Nanautavi have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm AaqibAnjum. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Muhammad Qasim Nanautavi have been reverted or removed because they seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 05:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Muhammad Qasim Nanautavi; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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: 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.''All this doesn't belong here. You may add relevant details at Hujjat al-Islam artice. Wikipedia is not for sectarianism. '' Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

June 2020
Greetings. In response to your question on my talk page, I reverted your changes to the article Al-Taftazani because you used as a source a YouTube video. Such videos are not considered reliable or appropriate sources for contributions to Wikipedia articles. By the way, if you wish to place comments on my talk page, please start with a section heading at the bottom of the talk page (not the top) and then put in your comment with your signature. If you are not sure how to do this, become a guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors. Chewings72 (talk) 05:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Al-Taftazani 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  KMagz04 (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you attempt to make unconstructive edits and trigger the edit filter, as you did at Al-Taftazani. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Youtube is not a reliable source. Please don't introduce any thing from there. See WP:RS for what kinds of references can be used. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:42, 2 June 2020 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Al-Taftazani
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 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:. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Asdf


A tag has been placed on Draft:Asdf, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 05:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC)