User talk:Mawlidman

April 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Mawlid. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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 lose editing privileges. 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 loss of editing privileges. Thank you. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  18:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The editor with whom i am engaged in the editing dispute appears quite unreasonable and uncompromising. How can i refer to arbitration from outsiders to resolve this issue? Much thanks. --Mawlidman (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First try to achieve consensus through discussion. If consensus cannot be reached, seek dispute resolution. Do not continue to edit war, even if you're version is "right". Doing so will surely lead to a block. It's better to leave the "wrong" version in place and talk it through. The back-and-forth editing is disruptive and gives the wiki a bad name. Collaboration is key. If the user is all-out being disruptive themselves in not cooperating, you may resort to WP:AN/I, but attempt consensus first. Hope this helps &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  14:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Consensus can't be reached. I will seek dispute resolution. Thanks again. --Mawlidman (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Saheehinfo
In light of Sockpuppet investigations/Thehistorian1984, your filing of the above SPI was disruptive. I've deleted it. You risk being blocked if you do something similar again.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How was my filing disruptive and possibly worthy of my being blocked? I merely re-opened it because i thought that my initial SPI was prematurely closed—as i made clear in Sockpuppet investigations/Thehistorian1984, after it had been, IMO, hastily closed. --Mawlidman (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First, you didn't reopen it. You created a new one with the accounts reversed. Second, your claim that the case was prematurely closed doesn't entitle you to open or reopen the case. Your case was baseless in the first place. There's no evidence of a relationship between the two accounts. You just don't agree with Saheehinfo in an ongoing dispute. I've read some of the article Talk page discussion, and your attitude is often offensive. You have an acknowledged single purpose in being at Wikipedia, and thus far you have not shown yourself to be an asset to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * First, you should try enquiring before you make wrong assumptions: i acknowledged my mistake in the application for a 2nd SPI here. Second, did you even investigate to determine "There's no evidence of a relationship between the two accounts"? To me it seemed as though the case was prematurely closed before such a conclusion could be made. Lastly, your claims of my single purpose on wiki and that i "have not shown [myself] to be an asset to the project" are not born out by the facts. I have made many positive contributions to the single article and i have also edited and created other articles. My dispute with the other editor is also based around my request to have a non-contoversial edit added to the single article you speak of. All that is hardly as negative an impression as you paint. --Mawlidman (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

More disruption
do not revert again unless you want to be a vandal. Read Manuel Noriega, he was convicted well before. Besides, no "removal" needs citation; you need to cite that Noriega didn't predate. Good luck. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not threaten me when you are clearly ignorant of facts and intricacies. Noriega was charged in France for a French crime, which is why he was extradited there. Habré was charged in Senegal even though he committed no crime there; that is what the source is drawing attention to in regards to it being a first. But thankyou for revealing your inability to grasp simple differences. --Mawlidman (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for ganging up on me here, even after i clearly explained why i reverted you. Some people don't take being proven wrong and arrogantly ignorant too well! --Mawlidman (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello. You appear to have made some reverts lately&#32; on 14th Dalai Lama. Please be aware that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reverts on a single page within a 24 hour period. Rather than reverting edits, please consider using the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. The dispute resolution processes may also help. Excessive reverting may result in a loss of editing privileges.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.92.125 (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at 14th Dalai Lama. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. Katietalk 20:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why i was so readily blocked here, after being reported by an obscure IP of all people, when i provided clear reasoning for all my reverts here and in the edit summaries here. Also, why wasn't i given the chance to defend myself from blocking? Could you unblock me and i will not return to simply reverting but will engage in discussions where necessary? N.B.: one of those who argued for my blocking, Carlossuarez46, seems to have added his voice purely out of spite for being proven wrong. He agreed to my blocking even after i explained and appeared to convince him of the correctness of my edit here (he hasn't removed my article edit since my explanation). --Mawlidman (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You were warned against violating 3RR, which is a bright line rule, and you did it anyway. You've been here long enough to know that violating 3RR means a block. There's no requirement that you be reported by a registered editor, and IPs are editors in good standing unless they're disruptive. In addition, is one of the best admins I know and he doesn't act out of spite.
 * I don't care if your edit is right or wrong. I care that you stop edit warring. Sit out the 24 hours and think about your approach to editing while on your break. Katietalk 00:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but even if Carlossuarez46 is "one of the best admins" you know i still doubt he acted in good faith in adding his weight to the block request. --Mawlidman (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If not violating 3RR myself in order to revert you indicates to you that I agree that you are right, you've fundamentally misunderstood editing here. I hope you use your downtime to reflect on whether you want your editing to be collaborative or competitive. If the latter, you'd best be prepared for much downtime in future. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this has nothing to do with your fear of "violating 3RR". You never responded to the explanantion i gave you for opposing your Habré edits. I took this that you understood your error concerning Noriega. If you still support your Noriega view then could you respond to my explanation in our relevant talk page section above? If not then you admit i was right, which brings me to my gripe that you should never have added your weight to the block request since you were initially in the wrong—not me. --Mawlidman (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument is incoherent Manuel Noriega was a national leader, he was convicted in another state. He was before this guy. In any event, some anon made an edit clarifying what the source says proving you were wrong and not citing sources properly. This is considered vandalism. Do not add material that is not in the source but embellished by you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "some anon made an edit clarifying what the source says proving you were wrong and not citing sources properly. This is considered vandalism." No this was not a deliberate embellishment by me, so your claims of vandalism are wishful thinking. I simply missed it when i was composing the edit. Anyway, a few extra words were added to my edit to make it right, rather than its complete removal. --Mawlidman (talk) 04:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Arnab Goswami. 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 that 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. Vanamonde (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2016 (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.
 * I'll reiterate this warning: you are now at the limit of 3RR, and if you persist you'll pay a visit to 3RRN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. I will expose what vindictive little racket you and your gang are playing. Mawlidman (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism
I responded at WP:BLPN to explain why the edit is unacceptable. Another point is that this edit asserts that an editor is performing "disruptive vandalism", but the word vandalism must not be used to describe unwanted edits. WP:VANDNOT defines what the term means at Wikipedia—"vandalism" must not be used in a situation like this. One reason for that is obvious—suppose your edit were reverted with summary "revert vandalism". How helpful would such a summary be? Would you revert the revert using the same edit summary? There has to be a reason to revert an edit, and "vandalism" is not an acceptable reason for cases outside those described at WP:VAND. Johnuniq (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Badr Jafar, you may be blocked from editing.

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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2016 (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. Muffled Pocketed  09:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Muffled Pocketed  10:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Badr Jafar. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. slakr \ talk / 04:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

March 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2017 Westminster attack. 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 that 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.252.106 (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2017 (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.

Criticism of Sikhism
Although this article is being edited frequently to remove any false discrepancies, article expresses opinions of very few people including author mawlidman [] and is written in an attacking tone citing "single statement" references from various books. Most of the references lead to Sikh holy book scriptures and it's meanings have been personally modified by the author in order to fit the article. Also note that this article has history of being edited through sock puppet accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exterminator1313 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help
Greetings,

I was looking for article expansion help at articles like Islamic advice literature, Draft:Aurats (word) an article about historical linguistics and in article  several sections are in need of expansion. Please do visit those articles as and when time permits you and pl. do help in article expansions if those topics interest you.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bookku, thanks for the invite. Will try when I find the time. Thanks again. --Mawlidman (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)