User talk:Ahmed ibn Khalid

Shaigiya tribe

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. LeGabrie (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed ibn Khalid, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ahmed ibn Khalid! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

February 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. 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. Acroterion (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2019(UTC)

Following up on your continued changes to sourced information: provide sources, don't change sourced material to something the source doesn't say. If this continues you may face editing restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2019(UTC)

@User:Acroterion And he did it again. I just counted: he manipulated referenced material on the Shaigiya tribe page six times, exluding the four times when he was editing anonymously. Yesterday he also did so one time at the Ja'alin tribe page, after your warning. LeGabrie (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Acroterion He proceeds to edit-war at Shaigiya tribe. LeGabrie (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Acroterion And again. He doesnt't seem to be a fast learner. LeGabrie (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

the other editor only uses sources from one side and deletes approved facts such as Lineage and tribal descent which is all written in the arabic version of the page which is truly facts furthermore I added I correct source stating that their are arab and Nubian blood but it got deleted. Please review this Thank you, Ahmed

Decline reason:

I took a look at all of your edits from yesterday. Despite your claims to the contrary, not a single one of them added a citation. Perhaps you are confused. The relevant policies are WP:CITE, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. You should take the time while blocked to read and thoroughly understand these policies and guidelines. Yamla (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2019 (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.

WP:NOTTHEM Jannik Schwaß (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]