User talk:Simpleabd

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. - Ascetic Rosé   04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tawhid. Your edits continue to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Tawhid was changed by Simpleabd (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.865569 on 2015-09-29T08:38:13+00:00.

September 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Muhammad in Islam. 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. clpo13(talk) 09:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. 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. Neil N  talk to me 12:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Simpleabd. Please don't be upset.

You seem to be under the impression that if an edit is true and sourced, then nobody should stop it from being in an article.

Please understand that if that edit is disputed for whatever reason, you should use the article talk page to discuss things rather than just continuing to put the edit back.

When unblocked, please try that. Okay? I'm here if you have any questions. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Note I have extended your block to one week for socking. --Neil N  talk to me 00:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Now one month (I've posted to the talk page of your latest account). You really should take Anna Frodesiak's advice. --Neil N  talk to me 01:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Plea
Please, please do not register any more accounts or use any IP. Making and using Weaktry was not a good thing. You, personally are blocked. Please do not make things worse. Just wait for the block to expire and then discuss those changes to articles before making them. Feel free to talk to me here now. I am friendly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You just created User:Wearenotknowing. I have therefore blocked you indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I request to unblock.
Going item by item through your unblock request:
 * 1) I'm not sure what you mean by a complicated request. However, your requests have not (until now) addressed one big reason for your current block: your use of multiple accounts.
 * 2) "Freedom of speech" is a bad card to play in an unblock request. Strictly speaking, users don't have freedom of speech. (Wikipedia has that freedom to speak without government restriction, though—and is free to, among other things, block users for not following rules.
 * 3) Looking at your edits, it's questionable whether they were helpful. You added a lot of opinions and material that did not cite a secondary source.
 * 4) Your account is relatively new, but you were informed of the relevant policies before you were blocked. You were only blocked after you repeatedly broke the same guidelines.
 * Yes, we're giving you some latitude because English is not your primary language. That said, you would have gotten blocked for your conduct regardless of your skill with English.
 * Now, finally, to your unblock request:
 * 1) Will you follow all of the guidelines and policies, including those regarding primary sources? Put bluntly, will you refrain from citing the Quran as a source in any circumstance other than directly quoting it?
 * 2) Are you acknowledging that you did use other accounts and indicating that you will not use any account other than this one from this point forward?
 * 3) Can you give an example of an edit that you would make that complies with the guidelines? Be specific about what article you would change, how you would change it, and what reliable source(s) support your change. —C.Fred (talk) 04:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Will you follow all of the guidelines and policies, including those regarding primary sources? Put bluntly, will you refrain from citing the Quran as a source in any circumstance other than directly quoting it?

I am trying follow in the guideline and policy. . Holy Quran is primary source, i try to use it carefully.

Are you acknowledging that you did use other accounts and indicating that you will not use any account other than this one from this point forward? yes i acknowledge.

Can you give an example of an edit that you would make that complies with the guidelines? Be specific about what article you would change, how you would change it, and what reliable source(s) support your change

yes, i can try. simpleabd (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I request to unblock
Before an unblock is considered, you must give an example of an edit that you would make that complies with the guidelines? Be specific about what article you would change, how you would change it, and what reliable source(s) support your change.

anna (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

okay, i choose the article about peace of mind in the request. peace of mind can cure any medical condition. the source can be found in the context. ~simpleabd (talk) 13:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Based on the above answer which indicates a strongly pro-fringe stance and a complete lack of awareness of WP:RS and these requests I do not think this editor can contribute constructively to this encyclopedia. --neiln talk to me 13:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

it is just an example. we can add information based on the context. it is nice we need peace of mind but sometimes we can't control ourselves. simpleabd (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Enough
You are done wasting our time. Your talk page access has been revoked, per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are free to use WP:UTRS to make further appeals. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

ok.

 * Also, trying to use a second account to contest a block is not a good idea. Especially when one of the reasons for blocking was sockpuppetry. I'm sorry, but I don't see you ever getting unblocked at this point in time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)