User talk:Informationsort

October 2023
Hello, I'm 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Taifa of Seville, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Berbers, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Taifa of Seville. Skitash (talk) 11:24, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Al-Hasan al-A'sam into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. R Prazeres (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * There are several reasons why having copies of the same, or substantially the same, text in different articles is scarcely ever a good idea, including the fact that it makes it difficult to keep track of changes, and to make sure that corrections are applied to both copies.
 * A further point is that you have now twice added substantially the same material to the page, and each time your editing has been reverted. It is not considered constructive for an editor to just keep restoring their preferred version of an article in the face of other editors indicating disagreement. Persisting in doing so, known as "edit warring", may lead to being blocked from editing by an administrator. Instead of continuing to post your preferred version, if you think there are good reasons for preferring it then explain why on the article's talk page, Talk:First Qarmatian invasion of Egypt, and be prepared to discuss the issues involved, with a view to trying to reach agreement. JBW (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Informationsort, you have now repeated this pattern five times, including four times on the same page and the same thing on a second page (here, now blanked), despite clear requests to: a) stop creating undiscussed content forks that add nothing new to the encyclopedia, b) provide proper attribution when copying other articles, and c) stop edit-warring. You have been blocked from editing some articles due to your edit-warring, but if you continue to ignore requests and warnings from other editors, you may be reported for your wider behaviour, which could result in a more general or longer block. R Prazeres (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Berbers. 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: 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. R Prazeres (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2023 (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. R Prazeres (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
 You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 1 week for adding unsourced content, edit warring, and failing to acknowledge concerns raised by other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 10:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

"Campaigns against the Fatimids" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campaigns_against_the_Fatimids&redirect=no Campaigns against the Fatimids] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Constantine  ✍  15:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)