User talk:Balolay

Welcome!
Hello, Balolay, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Paleo Neonate  – 07:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Religion in Ivory Coast
Hello Balolay, I saw your update of the pie chart on Religion in Ivory Coast. You have changed the year of the estimate but the url is still linking to the 2014 census. JimRenge (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have added DHS source. Thanks for informing. But I am not able to make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balolay (talk • contribs) 12:11, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018
Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hinduism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Kashmir conflict. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 you recently reverted my edits on Kashmir & Jammu & Kashmir asking for consensus to add information in lead which I followed. I have started a discussion on the talk page. However your reversion of my edits on Kashmir conflict citing WP:UNDUE as a reason is totally unjustified as I have explained in the revert. Regards Balolay (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, that discussion needs to take place on the talk pages, not in edit summaries. The above template message explains that clearly. You have added similar content to the leads of at least 4 pages that I have seen, and the leads of those pages have been stable for years! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @Kautilya3 well thanks for guidance. The reason why those leads were stable for a long time is because the conflict was relatively moribund however it has come unde spotlight again. I will try to justify my stance on talk page. Thans again. Balolay (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * My strong recommendation is to justify your additions and changes on the talk page first. What we need is strong reason to state that those changes are needed. Please refrain from reverting edits until there is a consensus at the talk page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Criticism of Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Criticism_of_Islam check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Criticism_of_Islam?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

DS alert
Hi Balolay, this is to alert you to the discretionary sanctions (DS) that apply to female genital mutilation as a "gender-related dispute or controversy". I'm leaving this because the DS rules require it, and I'm doing so as an involved editor, not as an admin. The alert is self-explanatory and in itself implies no wrongdoing on your part. SarahSV (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Rather than engage in a slow edit war at female genital mutilation, please go to the talk page and argue your case there. Many thanks, SarahSV (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Your recent editing history at Slavery 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 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 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.

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. Thank you. Musicfan122 (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Your recent editing history at Slavery 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 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 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.''I would advice you self-revert your edit because editors are now able to report you and get you blocked. Thanks.'' SharabSalam (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Criticism of Muhammad 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 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 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. SharabSalam (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2019 (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. SharabSalam (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Abolitionism. 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:. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Note that references must not use Wikipedia itself as a source - see WP:CIRCULAR. I removed a 'reference' in the Islam in New Zealand article that did this, and you (improperly) reinstated it. Please don't do this again. Ross Finlayson (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kleuske (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks I was gonna send this but the internet connection stopped for a while--SharabSalam (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Utrecht shooting
Please do not add the name of the man suspected of the shooting, as per WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME. Thank you. MrClog (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Slavery, did not appear constructive and has 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 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. SharabSalam (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Punjabi Hindus
This is not a good edit. You restored a host of unsourced, unreliably sourced and irrelevant material that had been removed only hours before. That included violations of WP:BLP and a reference to a version of a copyrighted book originally published in 1974 but seemingly republished in 2005 by iUniverse and possiblyy done so illegally. You also reinstated multiple breaches of our style guidelines and various policies. Why? Please explain on the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

And this edit at Virat Kohli is an outright violation of WP:BLP and WP:V. The source does not even mention Hindu, and even if it did it would have to show him self-identifying that belief. - Sitush (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Hello, I'm JalenFolf. I noticed that you recently removed all content from Religion in China. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jalen Folf  (talk)  14:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Religion in Solomon Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Religion_in_Solomon_Islands check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Religion_in_Solomon_Islands?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

December 2019
Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Malaika Arora. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''Diff: Since you have previously added unsourced content about someone's religious upbringing, consider this an elevated warning not to add unsourced content. Wikipedia is not interested in what editors believe or know, we only care what can be attributed to mainstream reliable sources.'' Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

May 2020
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Ramadan. 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. ''You removed well cited information from article falsely claiming it was not sin the source. Please be more careful in the future.'' KSAWikipedian (talk) 02:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Muhammad
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Muhammad. MrClog (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced edits
It seems you're going around pushing unsourced and poorly sourced material into articles and attempting to give them a POV slant. Can you please stop doing this?VR talk  01:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Islamic views on slavery; 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. SharʿabSalam▼  (talk) 09:32, 22 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.

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. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European people ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Panama check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Panama?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paraguay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European people ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Paraguay check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Paraguay?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Red Hair
Please do not edit war to repeat edits that have been reverted. Wikipedia guidelines suggest your next step should be to discuss what you want to change. Otherwise; Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see the need for another picture of an actor, it adds nothing that isn't already there.
 * The picture of Ogëdei Khan, on the other hand, adds some historical information
 * If you are going to change the figures given in the lead, you will need to demonstrate why they should be changed, and source it. Unexplained changes will be reverted.
 * Please use edit summaries. It helps explain what you are doing, and why, to other editors.

Edit-warring
You have made this edit several times. That constitutes edit-warring. If you make it again without consensus to do so, it will be considered disruptive and your editing privileges are likely to be interrupted. You should also familiarise yourself with WP:ETHNICITY, which says pretty clearly Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Since you have not opened a discussion and successfully argued that the subject is notable for being of Indian descent, as opposed to being notable for being a comedian, the content shouldn't be in there, as it conflicts with the guideline. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Your recent editing history at Red hair 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You appear to have a long history of being unable to follow Wikipedia policies and co-operate with other editors. I also see you are currently also pursuing edit wars on other articles. I urge you to cease this behaviour before it results in a longer block or ban.

In regards to your edits on Red Hair, as I have already explained in part above; -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article lead does not need another picture of a actor with red hair. The historical image gives the lead more breadth.  Please stop changing this without consensus.
 * Your change to the lead is supported by a very poor source in a personal opinion piece on "boingboing.net", that in turn references Huffington Post. If you want to alter what the lead says you are going to need a far source than that, preferably citing an actual study.
 * Even with that, what you are changing the lead to say is not even supported by your cite. It says "about 1%", while you are changing the article to say "less than one percent".
 * If you disagree with any above, please bring it to the talk page before reverting your changes back into the article.

July 2020
Your recent editing history 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This is in regards to your repeated unjustified undoing of revisions for Diriliş: Ertuğrul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelaroche (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Empire AS Talk! 12:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

SP
Hi,, hope you are fine. I've gone a bit frank with you to advise you on something. I think that you use 2 accounts on Wikipedia but you haven't mentioned it in your user page. I'll suggest you to use only 1 account, but if you use 2, then you must mention the other account on your page. So that it wouldn't be used for Sock puppet or Meat puppet or any other purpose. There are solid chances that both of your accounts will be blocked indefinitely, if you used them for sock or meat puppet purposes. Second thing is that never ever revert more than 3 edits on a single page in 24 hours, there are high chances of you to be blocked. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 16:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Talkback Diriliş: Ertuğrul
Joelaroche (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Strange comment
You made a comment here supporting me. Then about an hour later, you reversed that comment here. A little strange, don't you think?VR talk  14:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes actually. I did make that comment. The statement was the same in the deleted as well as the new comment, as you can see but I put the names after copy pasting them in a wrong way. My bad. Balolay (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit war
Your recent editing history at Rape in Islamic law 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

VR talk  14:59, 16 July 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. Thank you. VR talk  15:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Diriliş: Ertuğrul
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 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:. Per a complaint at WP:AN3. I take note you were blocked a week for sockpuppetry on 22 May and this has not inspired you to be any more cautious in your editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)