User talk:محبةالكتب

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

June 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Yintan. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Moors, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  Yinta 23:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Amaury. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Djanet, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert at Dilshad Vadsaria[edit]

I have reverted your edit at Dilshad Vadsaria for several reasons. First, you restored a BLP violation by adding personal info that is contested and not supported by any reliable sources. Second, you restored a Twitter link in contradiction to WP:ELOFFICIAL, and third, you reverted a full reference to a bare url link in the reference section.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 15:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

And again, your edit has been reverted for the same reasons above. Please read what constitutes a reliable source. You'll notice that Wikipedia is specifically excluded as a reliable source. In addition, you again reduced a source to a bare url and added an inappropriate external link in contradiction to WP:ELOFFICIAL. Please stop.--Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Warda Al-Jazairia[edit]

Please stop reverting and take note of comments in the article's edit summaries and of discussions on its talk page, Talk:Warda Al-Jazairia. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello You should stop and not I You must stop because you do not know already she is not Lebanese she Algerian and all the Arabs know this

Disruptive edits[edit]

Stop Despite multiple warnings and explanations as to how your edits violate several Wikipedia policies, you continue to edit war to add and restore BLP-violating contentious material that is either unsourced or poorly sourced. By blind reverting you are also restoring inappropriate links and formatting errors. You obviously have not read the policy links that have been provided to you and continue to do as you please; if you continue to edit tendentiously you will be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruptive editing. You have completely ignored the warnings given to you with regard to your addition of unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material to articles and have therefore been blocked for 48 hours. When the block expires please ensure you include reliable sources to allow for verification of the material added. If your edits are challenged/reverted you must be willing to discuss the issue with other editors, this is imperative in a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Blond hair section[edit]

Hi, what i have edited the section to currently is correct, i have noticed you disrupt new edits every time, so i would like to explain each part.

"Semi-Blond" hair should be punctuated as semi-blond, when in between lines

The tendency is about the same in every part of Asia, so all the regions need to be listed

I mentioned India and Kazakhstan because they have most traced European DNA, doesn't mean they have most blond hair, or these parts need to be pointed out, majority of Europeans in Kazakhstan have emigrated back to their countries, i also mentioned these people were sent to this country because of difference in ancestry and customs, Soviet Union had similarities to Nazi behavior, they were sent to this country because they were not like common Russians, Germans, and Ukrainians, with light hair, eyes...etc, but it can still be found in these groups

When blond hair turns brown in adulthood, it's still considered blond, that's what happens to majority of blonds in the world

Semi-blond hair is also not a word, blond is interchangeably and it means light hair, it can be caused by multiply reasons, environment...etc

I notice this is the section you change a lot, semi-blond is not a word, blond has multiple meaning, even blond hair not caused by genetics is still considered blond or light

When doing genetic research the correct term is light not blond, but the word can be interchangeably with blond, the Russian statistics specifically stated light, that's is why light is listed.

The sources are also listed at the end of each paragraph and there's around three for each paragraph, almost each source talks about the whole topic, so that is why some, not all, are listed at the end of the paragraph.

If you are unclear about a part of that section message me to clarify before making a change that doesn't help or are unnecessary and it takes me a very long time to restructure the words, sentence, and flow of the paragraph after you edit them. Your last edit took a lot of time to fix because i don't just re-edit what you have done, I'm fair enough to look into what you done. The information is still the same, you just seem to disrupt words, structure, and flow, many words are presented the way they are presented in the sources. I am also working with multiple users at once when editing. You have done this multiple times.

So, contact me first and don't make unnecessary edits that disrupt the information, ThanksNursingxmajor (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Blond shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—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. SQGibbon (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit-warring and continued BLP violations. Since returning from your last block for the same disruptive editing you have continued to add contentious and unsourced material to biography articles. Edits such as this show that you either still do not understand policy or you are actively disregarding it. The block is of indefinite in duration, that is you will remain blocked until you are able to demonstrate an understanding of the importance of reliable sourcing in biography articles and what constitutes an edit war. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 23:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]