User talk:Majilis

Images of Islamic figures
See Requests for comment/Muhammad images Wikipedia is not censored and although there might be a cultural or religious reason for not displaying certain images, those reasons aren't relevant to this encyclopedia project, as it's written from a neutral point of view. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am currently working hard to undo some of the damage he has done to a large collection of articles. What is worthy of mentioning is that his contributions to several articles have been very good and I think we have a very good editor in the making here as long as we make him understand that WP:CENSOR applies to him just like it applies to everyone else. -- Dront (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Islam with this edit, did not appear to be constructive, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.  AndrewN  talk 23:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please stop inserting commentary into articles. The digression is unhelpful and distracting, and you're now edit-warring to keep the material in. You may consider this a warning about edit-warring: see WP:3RR and WP:EW, as well as WP:V and WP:RS. All material must be sourced appropriately and referenced.   Acroterion   (talk)   03:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Muslim. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  03:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Islam. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  04:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Slon02 (talk) 04:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Editor is new and may not have understood why the edit was reverted. He contacted me earlier tonight, but I have just now had the opportunity to respond on my talk page.  Just wanted to make note of this with the block in case there was a block appeal.   AndrewN  talk 04:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 AndrewN  talk 04:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I just want to make sure you have seen my reply to the message you posted on my talk page.  I look forward to your response.   AndrewN  talk 07:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Al-Ghazali with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al-Ghazali&action=history page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok got it, thank you! --Majilis (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk page usage
Please put new sections at the bottom of the talk pages. Please see Help:Using talk pages for more information. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Al-Farabi, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Al-Farabi. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Jim1138 i ask you please don't make things up, i think it's you're unconstructive in criticism as you yourself failing to explain why you're reverting my changes, everything i wrote was specific and clear enough for kindergartener to figure it out, and you are reverting my changes both in Imam Al-Ghazali and al-Farabi without the knowledge of why you're doing so, please be responsible, you're doing this without any knowledge or clear thought, tell me why are you doing this? Majilis (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Al-Farabi, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Jim1138 again? Why? Give the reasons ? Majilis (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * wp:censor Jim1138 (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Al-Ghazali, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jim1138 (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Majilis, if you continue to edit war your next block will be longer and possibly by me. I hope that's clear and persuades you to stop. Dougweller (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Image deletion
Regarding this edit in which you removed an image from the Timur article and left a comment about Islam in its place: Since this incident occurred after your final warning above, I nearly blocked you for the disruption but refrained due to the number of days that have passed without further similar incidents. In the future, please do not delete legitimate content from articles without providing a valid, policy-based reason for doing so. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is not about Islam
 * Wikipedia is not bound by the rules of Islam
 * Prohibitions about drawings or pictures are not universal in Islam, even if the subject is Muhammad; see depictions of Muhammad and Talk:Muhammad/FAQ for more information
 * Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of Muslims or anyone else

Please respect the consensus at the talk page
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Al-Farabi. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. The issue of Al-Farabi's has been discussed at the talk page, and the established consensus there is not that he is Turkic. Do not change the article unless new consensus arises there, and do not misrepresent the consensus in comments embedded into the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To repeat, the edit you made was against established consensus and therefore disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You are also at three reverts to the Al-Farabi article today. As a reminder, there is a bright line in place after three reverts:

Your recent editing history at Al-Farabi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * SineBot all right i'll try to sign for each of my post, thank you

--Majilis (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Al-Farabi
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Evanh2008 (talk 02:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Al-Farabi & edit summaries
I find it ironic that you are not using edit summaries but ask me to give reasons for reverting, which I clearly did, writing "See talk page, there doesn't seem to be consensus for these edits,". Looking at your warnings above, it looks as though I was right. Please get consensus on the talk page. Don't revert me without that. Really, when you are getting warnings, when more than one Administrator is reverting you, don't you think you need to get agreement?

And as you asked me, I'm asking you, please use edit summaries when you edit. Dougweller (talk) 04:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violation
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —C.Fred (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop deleting references
Stop deleting references simply because it says something you don't like. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

--Kansas Bear you stop reverting my posts on wikipedia wihtout giving any reasons do not revert otherwise you will be blocked

--Majilis (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will restored referenced information when it has been deleted. Take your threats elsewhere.--Kansas Bear (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

--Kansas Bear you are writing with no knowledge and without giving any reasons why you reverted it, please note that such an act is not appropriate

--Majilis (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "No knowledge"?
 * First off you should not ignore/delete references you disagree with or dont like.(which is what you are doing throughout wikipedia).
 * Second, if you had read through the edits, you would have seen that one of the Turkish sources was placed there by me. However, whether I believe he was Turkish or Oklahoman means nothing here, which means the same for your opinion.
 * Thirdly, "if you had any knowledge", you would realize that the majority, if not all the Turkish sources state he was Turkish not Turkic.
 * Fourth, there are sources that call him Persian/Iranian and therefore should be included in the article. You have given no reason nor gained consensus to remove those sources. So you should heed your own "warning" of disruptive editing, before you are blocked for the second time. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparent edit warring while knowing what you're doing
On my talk page, you acknowledged the existence of WP:3RR and the necessity of discussing the changes you're trying to make to Al-Farabi. Eight minutes later, you reverted the article again,, but you have not made any edits to the talk page.

What rationale can you give, why I should not block you right now for persistent edit warring? —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Final Warning
This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to al-Farabi. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on al-Farabi. 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. Jim1138 (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2012 (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.

Jim1138 please tell me what's wrong? You are writing lies, i am writing the truth, is that why you want to block me?

--Majilis (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2012 (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.

--Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring why? because i'm writing the truth, is it?

--Majilis (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether your edits are "true" or "false" is not the issue. The issue is that you refuse to discuss the matter at the article's talk page, and your edit warring is disruptive to the project. That is why you face being blocked: for persistent edit warring and refusal to discuss. —C.Fred (talk) 02:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Majilis, it should be clear to you that you are in disagreement with pretty much every other editor interested in several articles related to Muslim scholars. Now, you can ask yourself if every other editor is wrong and please do try to take on their point of view and argue for your opinion being true. But, and this is a big but, do this on the talk pages before editing or even defacing an article. Also, for the love of god, use edit summaries to motivate your edits. If you persist to refuse to have a discussion because you are so cock-sure that you are right, maybe you should ask yourself if you are suitable to edit these, to you, controversial articles. As it stands, it is my humble opinion that you exhibit clear signs of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To end on a positive note, I think you have made positive contributions to articles other than the ones on Muslim scholars, but this doesn't justify your ongoing edit warring. -- Dront (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

--C.Fred i've posted dozens of posts nobody replied i'm stating very truth and the facts, now you please go the discussion page and we'll discuss it there

thank you for your reply :D

--Majilis (talk) 03:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And I see some of your discussion there, such as:
 * The fact concerned here is not about the references but the place of his origin...
 * The references are the issue: what, according to the references, is his place of origin? According to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, statements must be backed up by reliable sources—and reliable sources are presented in the article and discussed there that show origins other than strictly Turkic. Accordingly, to change the article, you must generate a new consensus at the talk page to change the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

--C.Fred on of the many reliable sources i'm refering to here is: '''Al-Farabi on the Perfect State: Abū Naṣr Al-Fārābī's Mabādi' Ārā Ahl al-Madīna al-Fāḍila. A revised text with introduction, translation and commentary by Richard Walzer. pp. viii, 569, oxford, Clarendon Press, 1985. £45.00. ''' is this not a reliable source to you ? Can you even afford to buy that book to yourself? you can have look at the reviews here, this book is from Oxford University Press: if you are that much enthusiastic you can have look at the Cambridge journals online here as well,

--Majilis (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If there are multiple, contradictory sources, then there needs to be discussion to support the change. I've looked at the discussion at Talk:Al-Farabi, and there is no consensus there to support your change. I see multiple other editors opposed to your version and generally supportive of the previous version. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

--C.Fred listen, what you are saying is not substantiated with anyhting, you are just playing with words and doing whatever you desire to do, you asked me for reliable sources, i gave you reliable sources, i can give you still more, on the discussion page the last words were mine and nobody gave substantiative replies or arguments, i ask you please do not lead edit warring and point everything to me, i'm giving you reliable sources research it

--Majilis (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:16, 24 June 2012 (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) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Turkic people has been nominated for merging
Category:Lists of Turkic people has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)