User talk:Audeamus42
September 2017
[edit]
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Origins of the American Civil War. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. * "This was openly acknowledged by everyone, including Abraham Lincoln who felt that freeing slaves was an evil greater than slavery itself. "
That was nowhere in the source you provided. Nothing else was either and worse, you aren't using a reliable source.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Origins of the American Civil War, you may be blocked from editing. Shellwood (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Secession in the United States. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Secession in the United States. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Doug Weller talk 10:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
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. Doug Weller talk 10:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Taqiya has been reverted.
Your edit here to Taqiya was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=638TIucikys&feature=youtu.be) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Taqiya. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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; 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 19:03, September 24, 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at GoFundMe. jihadwatch is not a reliable source anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Taqiya
[edit]You wrote:
For those in the West, taqiyya is used to denote any situation where Islam sanctions deception, whether it is to advance Islam[1], protection of a Muslim under duress[2], or to protect the general reputation of Islam[3]. Deception is also permitted when it is a white lie. Considering all of this, it may be that technically Islamic scholars are correct to try to say that the use of taqiyya is an inaccurate and inflationary use of the word, but Raymond Ibrahim is correct in his consideration of taqiyya by his definition. It is a complicated subject that is counter intuitive to those with Western values.
You haven't used any sources for your comments about "For those in the West" - please read WP:VERIFY. That'a fundamental policy and none of this addition is sourced, so it can be reverted simply for that reason. It's also your opinion, and we don't allow original research - another basic policy. Our articles are meant to be based upon what reliable sources say about a subject. Your edit doesn't meet our criteria. Doug Weller talk 19:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
References
- I've started a discussion on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
September 2017
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Taqiya. 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.
Please see Talk:Taqiya#Contemporary_debate_edit_war for more information. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 10:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)