User talk:Afg96

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Kennedy Collegiate Institute has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Kennedy Collegiate Institute constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Oz article

The issue of whether Mehmet Oz's article should call him a muslim has already been discussed on the article's talk page. The current decision on the talk page is that the article should not call him a muslim. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's policy on consensus says that "editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mehmet Oz. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mehmet Oz. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Stossel

Hi. You removed content from Wikipedia with this edit of yours to John Stossel, but without providing a rationale for this in an Edit Summary. When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Mehmet Oz. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned in a WP:AN/I discussion regarding the Mehmet Oz page

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruption by user:Afg96. Thank you. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an update. In this follow-up section, User:NE Ent asked for further talk page discussion of Oz's religion, so I have created a new section for that purpose. If you wish to have Oz's religion mentioned in the article, you must participate in the talk page discussions and achieve consensus. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at University of Bologna‎. 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 16:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Afg96 reported by User:Serial Number 54129 (Result: ). Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 16:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPA warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors.. El_C 18:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You have already received a 3RR-warning, so I won't give you another one, I'll just remind you that you have already made three reverts, making the next revert, if any, a CLEAR violation of the rules. I have also commented on the talk page of the article (Talk:University of Bologna#Not the oldest university?), and strongly suggest you read my comment. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for 24 72 hours for violating the 3 revert rule and [added:] for personal attacks. Please be more careful in the future. [added:] I already warned you about not making personal attacks, so it's disappointing that you did so again anyway. Please do better. El_C 19:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has prompted me that you've sent an email — however, I have not received it. At any rate, my preference is to discuss the block here, in the open. El_C 20:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have increased your block to 2 weeks for block evasion. El_C 20:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that I have violated wikipedia rules, but Thomas W. Is factually incorrect. This is the reason why people don't trust wikipedia. As long as you have the consensus of the ignorant then you are presumed correct on wikipedia. A simple google search would show that University of Bologna is not the oldest, you can even compare that false claim with encyclopedia Britannica. Can you check our discussion on University of Bologna talk page. He has bias, and I would even say racist views. He doesn't even know what madrasa even means. The contributor with an agenda often prevails. In theory, the intellectual sparring at the heart of Wikipedia's group editing process results in a consensus that removes unreliable contributions and edits. But often the contributor who “wins” is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda. This is what is happening here right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afg96 (talk • contribs)

Accusing someone of racist views is a serious personal attack, the third one you made today — you were warned and sanctioned for that already. That's just unacceptable, regardless if the facts are on your side. I've blocked you indefinitely until such time that you can demonstrate you can adhere to our rules of conduct. You did yourself and your position a dis-service by engaging in this and you have no one to blame but yourself. El_C 22:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why was I blocked indefinitely? I merely expressed an opinion to you! There is a difference in the tone of the language and the figure of speech. You are acting tyrannical, you are given authority on Wikipedia yet you are abusing your power kind of like Stalin, Lenin, and Che who you seem to admire. I guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree does it? I hope you are not hurt by that, and I hope I didn't hurt your feels. I'm sorry if I did. But seriously man, you just admitted that Wikipedia doesn't care about facts by stating "That's just unacceptable, regardless if the facts are on your side". So if that is the case why don't we just make up facts, you basically proving the point of many teachers and academics as to why Wikipedia shouldn't be trusted I guess they were right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Afg (talk • contribs)

You were blocked indefinitely, as stated, because you continue to violate our no personal attacks policy over and over again; and for block evasion (one, two). That's all I have to say. I'm not going to respond to your invective and straw man further. El_C 01:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]