User talk:Ectomorfer

Welcome!

Hello, Ectomorfer, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Uthman, have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can place {{helpme}} on your talk page along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up attempts take it easy

I understand you are trying to clean up Wikipedia as it is infected with pro Shia propaganda but you have to take it slowly and not jump the gun these people will report you if you slip up even once just relax Wikipedia is not an authority on Islam and its pro Shia stance is evidence of if Sunnis bothered to edit it then they would lose badly but anyone who is guided by Wikipedia is not serious about religion in the first place. Tagarayen4 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Umar at Fatimah's house. 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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid ibn al-Walid, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Umar at Fatimah's house 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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not reverted anyone so far what are you on about? Ectomorfer (talk) 19:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the links. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Your recent editing history at Umar at Fatimah's house 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are there for a good reason see talk page first. Ectomorfer (talk)`

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Clearly you hold a Sunni point of view, while others take a Shia point of view. Editing to present one view as objective fact is contrary to Wikipedia policy. This applies even if you personally are convinced that what you are posting is objective fact, as everyone believes that his or her view is correct, and others are just as convinced as you that another view is correct. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Umar at Fatimah's house. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you need to explain why you removed tags first without explanation. Ectomorfer (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]