User talk:Abu calaf

December 2022

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib was changed by Abu calaf (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.862933 on 2022-12-24T11:04:59+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Apaugasma. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Abdullah ibn Abd al-Muttalib, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed a recent edit you made does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. Please stop now. You've been blocked indefinitely many times (including many of your socks). You're not allowed to participate in this project. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note to admins reviewing any possible unblock request for the indefinite block below: Abu calaf is not a sock, per the proceedings at SPI. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate images, as you did at Hud (prophet), you may be blocked from editing. Images used only for vandalism may be added to the bad image list to prevent them from being displayed. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reject all claims regarding inappropriate images, all I added was just Islamic calligraphy found on the Arabic wiki, these are baseless claims made by you, and I take back any apology regarding them. Abu calaf (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add an inappropriate image, as you did at Moses in Islam. Such images may be added to the bad image list if used persistently for vandalism. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok but i will say that i am not adding any inappropriate images, I'm just updating them, i know what I'm doing. Abu calaf (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No updates are necessary, especially none in the form of jpg/jpeg formats. The ones that are in use are in place for a reason! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok i understand that, i hope there is a peaceful resolution to this matter. Abu calaf (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently Islamic calligraphy is inappropriate? Please clarify Abu calaf (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how long is my block for editing? Abu calaf (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abu calaf! You will remain blocked indefinitely until you successfully appeal your block (see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks). In short, be sure to write in your unblock report what you did wrong (i.e., explain the mild edit warring over images you engaged in at some pages in your own words) and how you are going to make sure it won't happen again in case you are unblocked. Thanks, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 09:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

hey thanks for letting me know, I apologise for my edit warring, I assure you it will not happen again in this platform, I understand what was happen and I will take note in the near future, thanks.

Decline reason:

Please follow the suggestion offered by Apaugasma, above. This does not convince me you understand WP:EW. Yamla (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, thanks for clarifying what your problem is with my review Yamla. I will keep this as short and effective as possible, I take full responsibility for my edit warring. I still believe there are good reasons for keeping me in the Wikipedia community, as my edit warring was a mistake on my part, and I ensure it will not happen again under any circumstances. :I hope you examine this review carefully and give your decision on the matter, I would also like to point out that I have listened to Apausgama's suggestion and have followed it carefully, thanks for reading this and I hope you can overturn my block. Abu calaf (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were blocked as a sockpuppet, as well, and you need to address that. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi Daniel Case, re being blocked as a sockpuppet, I don't think that's accurate. They were suspected to be a sockpuppet of SheryOfficial, but SPI conclusively found that they are not. They did have another account (Imam huud) before, but the Abu calaf account looks to be a clean start and there's no evidence of violating WP:SOCK in any way. Also consider that ToBeFree's original block might (?) also have been influenced by the idea that socking was involved. Finally, it may be noted that they were never warned for edit warring, despite this being the actual reason for the block. Perhaps some rope is in order, accompanied by some explicit but stern guidance on how to avoid edit warring. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Thank you Apaugasma for responding to what Daniel had to say to me, and this is my unblock request yet again. I am aware that I was suspected as a sock, but I was never blocked for that at all, and Apaugasma clearly says 'Abu calaf (me) is not a sock' in response to the false accusation, so I don't understand why I am still not unblocked, I have sincerely apologised for my actions and I have cleared up everything now, thanks for reading, and i hope i can be my request to be unblocked can be accepted Abu calaf (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This unblock discussion is a mess, and that's not entirely Abu calaf's fault. Abu calaf, we'll see if you actually stop edit warring. You're unblocked now, and you'll be re-blocked if you continue making the same edits that led to your block. Other users have objected to your infobox/image changes, so please have a look at the Task Center or the community portal and find something else to do. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from Vikings season 4 into Ragnar Lothbrok (Vikings). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]