User talk:Zwanzig 20

April 2014
Hello, I'm CambridgeBayWeather. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Aisha that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Discuss the article but do not attack the other editors. Things like this are not acceptable. Also the line at User talk:Somchai Sun is a joke and is not meant to be taken at face vale.'' CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * By the way the quote of Thomas Carlyle is from an 1841 book, On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History, and would have to be read in the context of the time it was written. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 03:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you know what a joke is?
Because that's the definition of what is written on my talk page, you know the "devious and evil part". You wouldn't get it because you're not from my place of birth. FYI, you are considered a Blasphemer by Sunni Muslims...kinda sad. I'm glad you have a more healthy attitude when it concerns the Hadiths. It's pretty obvious they were constructed to suit the aims & agendas of Muslim rulers at the time.--Somchai Sun (talk) 10:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Muhammad, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Muhammad 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. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

And because you've yet to try to discuss matters on the talk page, I've started a discussion for you, which you can find here. Just a tip: dismissing scholarship just because it's western is only going to make you look bigoted, which won't get anyone to support you. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes Zwanzig 20, your POV tagging is pointless if you fail to discuss any specific things in the article that you feel warrant the tag. Please try to be constructive. A tag without an explanation is not constructive. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Aisha
This is edit-warring as you clearly have no one agreeing on the talk page to these edits - you must get consensus first. WP:DRN is another possibility but given your attitude I don't think it will work. One editor can't keep a pov template on a page in the fact of other editors disagreeing, and your text changes clearly don't have consensus - not just the recent discussions but earlier ones. If you keep this up you will almost certainly be either blocked or even topic banned from these articles. Dougweller (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Aisha 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. Dougweller (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Additionally, you don't need 3 reverts to be edit-warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)