User talk:Eng. Ethical Hacker

August 2018

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Moez Masoud. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. XYZt (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hi Eng. Ethical Hacker! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. --Renat 01:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Culture of the United States shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | tålk 12:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

Hi,

I am letting you know that your current custom WP:signature (([[User talk:Eng. Ethical Hacker|talk]])) does not comply with Wikipedia's policies on signatures, namely, your custom signature fails the first criteria that A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username.

Please either revert back to the default signature, or (if you wish to only have a link to your talk page) change it to something from which your username is identifiable (for example [[User talk:Eng. Ethical Hacker|Eng. Ethical Hacker]], which produces Eng. Ethical Hacker). Thanks,
SSSB (talk) 11:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

clpo13_(talk) 00:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]