User talk:Mohamed saadi rami

Religion
Roman Catholicism is correct, and consistent with the corresponding fields for other articles. Please stop changing this field. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, stop doing this. If you keep changing the field and fail to respond on your talk page I'll have no option but to open a thread at WP:ANI. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

IP and religion
Hi. Saw you corrected some of the Swedish nobles religion after an IP had been there Maybe you could check the other edits to by the user. see here. I think it is the same error on more places. Best regards Adville (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I’m the user you were talking about. I was looking at the edit histories on the pages, and it turns out I was indeed correct. Maybe you could change it back? Thanks, User:37.205.120.66 (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox edits
Please stop modifying the religion parameter for European royalty/nobility articles. The changes you have made are either incorrect or have made the field less specific, and you have consistently failed to explain your changes in edit summaries or on the talk page. At this point I am considering WP:ANI since you have been unresponsive here. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1, 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 the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at It (2017 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Lion King (2019 film), you may be blocked from editing. ''The lions in the film were not actual lions filmed playing the roles. Ditto the hyenas, gazelles, and every other animal. That would have been "live action". Instead, they were computer generated animations. If you do not understand the difference, discuss the issue on the article's talk page.
 * 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, and seek consensus with them. 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.

When you make an edit and someone reverts it, if you do not understand why, discuss the issue on the article's talk page before continuing. '' Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Lion King (2019 film). Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on The Lion King (2019 film); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:21, 17 November 2019 (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.
 * Further to the above, please be advised that since this is a collaborative project, communication is required. If people disagree with your edits and revert them, you have two choices - you can engage in discussion with them and attempt to convince them that your edits were an improvement, or you can walk away and leave it. What you must not do is reinstate your changes and ignore other people's attempts to discuss them with you. If you persist with this, your account will be blocked from editing. Thanks Girth Summit  (blether)  15:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You have been persistently editing contrary to reliable sources and contrary to consensus among other editors. You have edit-warred to try to impose your own preferred version, ignoring other editors' views. In at least one article you have kept up an edit war on and off for a period of almost three months. You have never once responded to messages from other editors, nor have you made any attempt whatever to explain why you think your versions are preferable to others. That is not how Wikipedia works: we work by collaboration and cooperation, and when we disagree we discuss the relevant issues to try to reach agreement. Since posting messages to you has no effect, I have blocked your account from editing, in the hope that doing so will persuade you to at last start taking notice of what other editors say to you. At present the block is set to last for a week, but it can be reduced to less than that if you can persuade an administrator that you understand the reason for the block, and will not make the same mistakes again. To do so, first read the guide to appealing blocks, and then add the text at the bottom of this page, replacing the words "Your reason here" with an explanation of why you think you should be unblocked. Some of your editing looks like deliberate vandalism, but I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you have merely made honest mistakes, which is why this block is for a limited time. However, please take note that if similar editing continues after this block is over, you may possibly be blocked for much longer. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 16:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. Guy (help!) 01:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC) This is due to your failure to engage here or on any article talk page. Any unblock will depend on you starting to recognise the issues identifies above Guy (help!) 01:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)