User talk:LePatro

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Mecca is a city in the Tihamah" is misleading because Tihamah is ill-defined. "Mecca is a city in the Hejaz" is not misleading. Thus what were you correcting here ? Materialscientist (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hold on. Britannica has an article on Hejaz, and it says that both Mecca and Medina lie within it. Materialscientist (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * And he is making this change in dozens of articles; other changes even made to title of books. Non-careful editing. Hmains (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Replacing "Hejaz" with "Tihamah"
I recently reverted your replacements of the term "Hejaz" with "Tihamah" since the sources in those articles use Hejaz, and either way they don't describe the same regions, the former broadly describing the mountainous strip of western Arabia and the latter describing a smaller area of the southern coastal Hejaz and western coastal Yemen. Could you explain your rationale? Thank you. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. That maybe the historical context, but apparently it usually refers only to that southern part of the coastline while the Hejaz is defined more broadly and normally includes both Mecca and Medina, from Tabuk to the Asir mountains. The Hejaz is certainly used more often. I also think we should stick with Hejaz since that what the sources in those articles say. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt what the original definition used to be or what the early Arab scholars defined Tihama and Hejaz as, but the modern definition is different than the past one and it's the modern usage that we have to apply on Wiki. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Omar-toons (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * 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.


 * Hello,
 * Thanks to read WP:V, WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE as well as WP:RS, and maybe WP:TRUTH.
 * So, no matter what a unique source says and what was the place called 14 centuries ago, it is widely accepted and reported by the vast majority of RS that all these topics are related to Hedjaz, not "Timamah".
 * Thanks for understanding.
 * --Omar-toons (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Cut&Paste moves
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --Omar-toons (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Barelvi. 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. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Luke no 94  (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Omar-toons (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:RS
Thanks to read WP:RS and stop complaining as many users undo your edits : a book written in 1228 (8 centuries ago) isn't a reliable source. --Omar-toons (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)