User talk:Girahasan

June 2018
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Gabra people, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!


Hello, Girahasan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Jim1138 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
 * Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * The Signpost, our newspaper.

Gabra people
I undid your edits to Gabra people as you removed sourced content and wp:citations without giving a reason in the wp:edit summary. Wikipedia has a policy of wp:verifiability: any significant content needs to wp:cite a wp:reliable source. See help:footnotes and wp:referencing for beginners. Your edits have been saved in the wp:page history. You need to cite a source with any restoration. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 07:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Gabra people, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gabra people. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 07:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Gabra people was changed by Girahasan (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.957053 on 2018-06-05T07:54:38+00:00.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Gabra people has been reverted. Your edit here to Gabra people was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://kwekudee-tripdownmemorylane.blogspot.com/2013/07/gabra-gabbra-people-peaceful-camel.html?m=1) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours 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:.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   10:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Hello, I'm Flyer22 Reborn. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Gabra people— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk or my talk page. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Gabra people. 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. Jim1138 (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2018 (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.

September 2018
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)