User talk:220.238.160.97

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, 220.238.160.97, has made edits to Malek Fahd Islamic School that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:

• Help contents – the main help page.
• Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Alumni section on Malek Fahd Islamic School

I've removed the controversial alumni section as it is not compliant with Wikipedia policy. That is, it is not encyclopedic as it doesn't reflect what reliable sources are saying about the school rather than about people who went to the school. It's important that Wikipedia gives due weight to different bits of information. Including a section about controversial alumni suggests that the school may played a role and, unless multiple reliable sources about the school (not just mentioning it) say so, Wikipedia cannot do so.

I removed the "controversial" part and titled it as just "alumni". Please do not get rid of it again as it is normal for the Wikipedia pages of schools to have an alumni section.

October 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  David Gerard (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

220.238.160.97 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I created the "Controversial Alumni" section on the Malek Fahd wiki page (under the pages' "Controversies" sub-section) though it was taken down since it (according to the user who removed it) implied that the school played a role in the alumni's controversial actions. As such, I removed it from the "Controversies" sub-section and titled it as just "Alumni" with its own section. After doing this I was banned. I believe this ban is wrong since it is very common for the wiki pages of schools and universities to have an Alumni section wherein a short description of each alumni is given. This is precisely what my revised edit was yet it resulted in me getting banned. I thoroughly believe that this ban is unwarranted and thus should be lifted. Thank you

Decline reason:

Alumni lists in articles about educational institutions should only list people with Wikipedia articles; most of the people listed don't from what I can tell.

Given the fact that you only listed members of extremist groups as alumni and initially called the list 'controversial' I can only conclude that your purpose in making the edits is to embarrass the school by listing all the extremists it has produced- not to contribute to this project in a neutral manner. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

220.238.160.97 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Actually many alumni lists include people both with and without their own Wikipedia articles (the notable alumni section of Champagnat Catholic College Pagewood is one of many examples). Furthermore, according to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notable_alumni#inclusion_criteria) listing an alumni that doesn't have their own wiki page is valid so long as such a page will eventually be created. Considering the fact that most of the alumni I listed are prominent members of Hizb ut Tahrir, an extremist organisation that regularly makes headlines in the news, I believe its safe to assume that they will each have their own wikipedia articles soon as a result of their membership and frequent public statements. This is corrobated by the fact that one of them, Wassim Doureihi, already has one (created in 2007) due to his prominence as a representative of the group. Finally, I only listed members of the extremist group as alumni since they are genuinely the only public individuals that I could identify as alumni of the school through googling. If I discover that there are other prominent alumni who don't have any relation to extremism I will gladly list them. Again, I gladly and swiftly got rid of the 'controversial' part so your belief that I made the edit to embarrass the school is untrue. If embarrassing the school was my goal then I would have fought to keep the 'controversial' part. Once again, I am requesting that my ban be lifted. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - block has expired. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 10:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Someone else will review your request, but please see other stuff exists. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; 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:

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.

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

In response to some of the things you've said above, Wikipedia:Notable alumni is not a current policy or guideline as it says at the top of the page. The place to refer to for more information is WP:LISTBIO and WP:SOURCELIST (WP:ALUMNI also provides some related information). These pages require that subjects added to alumni lists are notable in their own right. The neutral point of view policy requires that all significant viewpoints about the subject are included in the article in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. That means that if reliable sources are only mentioning that the people you've mentioned attended the school then that isn't significant weight to support adding them to the article about the school. If they were notable enough to warrant having their own articles then there is a stronger justification for linking them (without explanation) from the school's article. Wikipedia works by consensus building rather than constantly reverting. If you continue to revert rather than engaging in discussion it's likely that you'll be blocked again, this time for longer. The best place to discuss this further, rather than reverting again, is at Talk:Malek Fahd Islamic School#Controversial alumni. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at the the administrators' noticeboard for edit warring regarding your editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Umm Kulthum. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

---