Jump to content

User talk:KahnJohn27/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Your submission at AfC King's Bounty: Dark Side was accepted

King's Bounty: Dark Side, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Coin945 (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to King's Bounty: The Legend may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • |publisher = [[1C Company]]<br/>[[Atari]]<small>([[North America|NA]]<small/><br/>[[Nobilis Games]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Sikkimese elections

Hello KahnJohn27. Can I ask you to stop removing the redlinks from the template. As I noted in the edit summary (I don't know if you saw it?), WP:REDNOT makes it clear that redlinks are perfectly acceptable in templates like this (in fact it specifically refers to election templates):

Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as {{Main}} or {{Further}}, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.

If you still want to remove them, I suggest starting an RFC on the template talk page. Cheers, Number 57 08:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Number 57 Then maybe we can just remove the brackets and keep the years. The red links do not serve any purpose at all. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
They encourage article creation!
As for the talk page archiving, I don't think you messed mine up - you added some tabs to some lines, but I don't think it's a problem. Re your question, it was instructing you to add {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} to the top of your talk page (which I've done in this edit). The WikiProject tags bit was only relevant if you were doing it to an article talk page. Do you want to turn on automatic archiving too? Number 57 10:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
@User:Number 57 Thanks but I don't think I need automatic archiving. Also thanks for guiding me on archiving. However there is a problem, whenever I type anything into the searchbox of the archivebox, no search result from my archives. One more thing those red links have been lying around for quite some time and nobody has bothered to create an article about them nor I think they ever will. It's no use keeping them. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I've no idea why the search isn't working. It may be best to post a query at Template talk:Archives. Re the elections, someone will create them. There is a feed of new election and referendum-related articles, from which I see a reasonably steady stream of Indian State Assembly articles being created. Someone will create them one day! Number 57 10:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thought you might need one. HelenOnline 10:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Robin Williams. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I've removed part of your comment. Talk:Robin Williams is solely for discussing how to improve Robin Williams. If you have an issue with that editor, bring it up on their talk page. — MusikAnimal talk 14:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI subsection

Sorry, it was me who put your comment in a subsection. I didn't want it to get lost as had my request for help, which became a conversation about something else altogether by editors who aren't even admins. HelenOnline 13:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:HelenOnline Doesn't matter. It's okay. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think Richard is referring to you. HelenOnline 13:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wasteland 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wasteland. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Guten Tag

  • I tried to summarize the ongoing count at Robin Williams, please check my numbers. I have three categories named since people expressed three possible outcomes. Some people want 1) all children named, some want 2) just notable children and some want 3) NO names and NO numbers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Now I see the original discussion. No, I wasn't talking about the RFC which I contributed to by agreeing with you. I was referring to the original controversy which required you to do all that work at the RFC just to satisfy one disgruntled person. Sorry for the confusion, you aren't supposed to name people in discussions, just the ideas that are brought up. That leads to confusion some times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2 persons not one. But I didn't start the Rfc to satisfy them or anyone actually. I only started it in order to take the opinion of as many people as possible on this issue. Anyway sorry for the misunderstanding. Happy editing! KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Since you have an interest in the notability issue at Robin Williams, here is another one Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 18 for Susan Lindauer. Decide one way or the other, but it involves notability guidelines and people are diametrically opposed on the issue. More eyes are better than fewer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC) ‎

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wasteland 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Bard's Tale. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Mythology

Definition by Oxford English dictionary:-


It may also stand for things that are pre-historical. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti I didn't say it is not real. I said it is mythological which means can't be confirmed whether it is true. Also I don't think the table is needed. If you want to keep it okay but I think you should properly edit it first. It contains many mistakes. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I used to think, just like that before, and someone else had provided me this same definition. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bladesmulti It's (the defintion) not entirely true but it is somewhat true. Are all myhts true? Simply no. Some are and some are not. Then again some are half made up and half true. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Resident Evil: Survivor 2 Code: Veronica a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Resident Evil Survivor 2 Code: Veronica. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you.

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Siege of Jerusalem (1187) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • {{Campaignbo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Siege of Jerusalem (1187) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s and 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Muhammad]] had traveled from [[Mecca]] to [[Jerusalem]] in a single night and ascended to heaven {[[Isra and Mi'raj]) in the year 621. The take-over of the city was peaceful especially in contrast to the Crusader [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Jerusalem (1187), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kurdish, Sibylla and Henry II. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm TopGun. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Muhammad bin Qasim, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. lTopGunl (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 27 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Animal sacrifice in Hinduism. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, 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. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bandi Chhor Divas
added a link pointing to Hems
Guru Arjan
added a link pointing to Ravi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Simon Tolkien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chelsea. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Chrisonp (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tolkien family, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Exeter College and Caversham. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sleeping Dogs concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sleeping Dogs, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sleeping Dogs

Hello KahnJohn27. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Sleeping Dogs".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sleeping Dogs}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 16:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Jerusalem (1187), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Coptic and Tyre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Mia Khalifa has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Hot Gossip Italia does not own the copyright to this photo. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

History of Sindh
added a link pointing to Dahir
Siege of Jerusalem (1187)
added a link pointing to Ascalon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit on Polygamy

While I neither like nor dislike your resent edits on the page Polygamy, I though you might want to read Help:Edit summary. All but the first of you 19 edits] do not uses the Edit summary to describe your actions. All it says is "Mobile app edit, Mobile edit" It makes other edits.

It is good practice to fill in the Edit summary field as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit. Additionally, when editors fail to use the edit summary field, it catches the attention of other editors. Usually it mean that someone will come along an undo your work.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


Recent Edits

Hello, I am Ranabhai Your recent edit to Muslim conquest of Persia got reverted by me because your edits seemed uncontructive if you think your edits are correct and mine were not then add your source to the article. Thank you Ranabhai (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Explaining

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: Can you review the article? I don't want it to be back logged for months. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Not until at least tomorrow. DS (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sicily, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Italian and Sicilian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

John Francis R. Tolkien

Hello KahnJohn27. An IP editor has just undone some material that you added to John Tolkien's section at Tolkien family. Your original addition was here on 4 March. Per the discussion at Talk:Tolkien family#Protected the mentions of Christopher Carrie should probably stay out of the article. Its inclusion might cause legal trouble, and does not form part of the notability of these family members for purposes of coverage on Wikipedia. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive93#Tolkien family. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at [[:Tolkien family]] 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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.
Your addition is not inherently notable and violates WP:NPOV as an inaccurate and one sided account which is also not notable to the article. There is long standing consensus on the talk page which I suggest you read. isfutile:P (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a reply, and some advice, regarding your comment here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tolkien_family#John_Fr._Tolkien_child_sexual_abuse_case isfutile:P (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Edward Gibbon

Hi. Despite Gibbon's central importance in the history of history writing, his 150-year old books are way too out of date for citing on subjects that have been extensively studied by modern scholars. Zerotalk 08:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Temple Mount, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sophronius. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edit at Temple Mount

I am concerned about your edit here. You introduced as a source the book of Meron Benvenisti with page numbers 15 and 33. However, that book does not appear to contain any of the information you cite to it. I checked both the google version that you linked to, and also a hard copy. Page 15 is about Saladin, and page 33 is about 1967. The origin of the al-Aqsa Mosque and Caliph Omar are mentioned on page 76, but as far as I can tell neither Sophronius nor Arculf are mentioned in the book at all. Am I mistaken? Zerotalk 04:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zero0000: I actually lifted my information directly from Siege of Jerusalem (637). On it the page numbers 15 and 33 are used as sources for origin of Al-Aqsa mosque. Since I didn't check out the source, I assumed the source and the information about Umar cleaning the Temple Mount was was correct since nobody had contested tge source and information on the article. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The references to pages 15 and 33 on Siege of Jerusalem (637) are to two different books, neither of them Benvenisti's book. Somehow you are not reading correctly. Zerotalk 01:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Zero0000: Oh sorry I didn't read them properly. I've entered them correctly in the article now. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Now you have deleted a large chunk of new text that is perfectly well cited. I'm wondering if you should be editing, as so far you have just made trouble. Zerotalk 10:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
@Zero0000: Excuse me. I have made a lot of contribution to Wikipedia articles and you're just ignoring it like I've done nothing in my time here. My edits on Temple Mount were correct especially seeing how some of your information was inaccurate and the source you were using is providing inaccurate information. For example Ka'ab, the Jewish convert to Islam never warned Umar about building a mosque on Temple Mount. In version of the story of Umar and the Temple Mount about Ka'b, it was Ka'ab himself who showed Umar the Temple Mount not Sophronius. So your information about Ka'b and Umar is incorrect. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't wrong but it was unclear; thank you for noticing that. Zerotalk 12:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The current state of shmup articles

Hello! You're invited to express your views about this topic on the discussion topic. Jotamide (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Temple Mount, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Council of Nicea. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please please stop completely overwriting edits when you have an edit conflict

I've noted this in your edits on several articles. When you have an edit conflict, PLEASE take the time to review what the conflict was and merge your changes in correctly. You keep removing content unrelated to the change you are making because of this. -- ferret (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Please also take a breathe and make an effort to proof read and spell check your edits. You are still causing edit conflicts that result in edits being undone unnecessarily. -- ferret (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ferret: It actually isn't my fault. I'm working on the mobile app for Wikipedia and it automatically overwrites another person's edit when there is an edit conflict and it never even notifies me whether or not there is an edit conflict. I'm really sorry but it's not my fault in actual, it's the fault of the Wikipedia app. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
If you're unable to edit Wikipedia without removing others' contributions, you should either make no edits at all or find a device that works correctly. One option is to use the mobile app only for reading, and do your edits when you have a better computer. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: The app has the same issue on all devices. Also I don't have a computer and neither I have any money to buy one. I can't stop editing just because the app automatically overwrites another person's edits without even any notice. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
After you have saved the (possibly faulty) contribution you have the option of doing a diff. You can then check whether your contribution has removed anything that was there before. It's within your power to correct that, if it happens. I myself use the mobile interface with great trepidation. EdJohnston (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: The feature of checking whether your contribution has removed anything that was there before isn't available on the Wikipedia mobile app. The app only lists the edit hostory of the article along with how many bytes have been changed in an edit but it never shows what changes have been made in an edit and what has been removed or added. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
It's really irrelevant, you are constantly causing editors to have to repeat their edits or undo you repeatedly because of this. I recommend you consider abandoning the mobile app, and attempt to use the site through your device's browser instead. -- ferret (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ferret: How is it irrelevant? The reason I use the apo instead of the browser is because it starts crashing after a few minutes on even a website like Google. On the app however I am able to get a stable platform to edit. Should I stop editing altogether even though it isn't any of my fault? KahnJohn27 (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
If you have no choice but to use the app, I would recommend that you excuse yourself from high traffic articles while other editors are also working on them to avoid conflicts. -- ferret (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Ferret: Sorry but that is highly impractical. Also in actual you and The1337gamer were the only editors except that frequently edited the article and they were only a few other editors so I won't call Fallout Shelter as a high-traffic article. Also seeing as to how I added majority of detail to the Fallout Shelter article, it might derive from useful information. I'll try to keep my edits minimal so I don't overwrite any edits but Fallout Shelter wasn't even a high-traffic article and you mostly made minor edits to it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Halo: The Master Chief Collection

Can you please pay attention and stop blindly reverting my edits? The first paragraph of post-release covers the ODST release. You're re-adding almost the exact same text again to the end of post-release. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

@The1337gamer: It seems that the paragraph has been added just now. I don't remember it being there before. Anyway thanks. Sorry if I didn't notice it earlier. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It was there before, it's been there for over a month. That's why I undid your edit when you first added that information and said in the edit summary "repetition". I then moved the sentence about buying ODST to the end of that paragraph and you continued reverting me. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@The1337gamer: I'm sorry I didn't notice it earlier. Earlier when you said "repetition" I thought you were referring to the lead section of the article. It was just a simple misunderstanding. I'm really sorry. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Islam and antisemitism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Home Alone (franchise), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Hewitt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DJ Khaled, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mavado. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for Disruptive editing followed by incivility.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Note for reviewing admin: Please see related related ANI; user talk page history particularly my earlier note and the edit summary of the edit removing it; and, immendiate next edit, which resumed edit-warring at another article. Abecedare (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

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).

KahnJohn27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is done just because User:Abecedare doesn't agree with me. My latest edit wasn't disruptive. I reverted it because my edit was correct. The Muslim conquests article is talking only about conquests of Arab Caliphates, therefore Ottoman Empire doesn't belong there. Also the Chalukyas and Gurjara-Pratiharas weren't sourced so I removed them from infobox. And I wasn't uncivil. When I said to Kautilya3 he will be exposing himself a liar I meant about his promise that he'll send me the source article of List of early Hindu Muslim military conflicts in the Indian subcontinent. Abecedare has unjustly blocked me and I shall complain about him to ANI. I ask other admins to please unblock me.

Decline reason:

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.

It would appear that you did not read the guide to appealing blocks. I would suggest you withdraw this request, read the guide and then post a new request that might have a possibility of being accepted because this one doesnt stand a chance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Arabian mythology may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • The three chief [[goddess]]es of Meccan religion were [[Al-lāt]], [[Al-‘Uzzá]], and [[Manāt]. Each was associated with certain domains and had shrines with idols located near [[Taif]]<

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muhammad bin Qasim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sindhi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement regarding Wahabbi clerics advising Saudi people on marriage

Hi John,

You recently added, and then removed, this on my user talk page. Since you have removed it from my user talk page, I'm responding here instead of there. Please understand that my point is more concerned with WP content guidelines than with POV about the matter to which the article content relates.

I think you missed my point.

The WP article at issue said, essentially, "A WND article said [inserted quote]." It didn't say that very well -- it just dropped raw the quote into the article without establishing any context for it and cited a WND article as the source of the quote. The inserted quote said, essentially "Neal Asbury (a person I have never heard of), writing on a website (there is a WP article with the same name as the website, but it is about a different topic), said [quote].", cciting a WND article in support. The cited WND article did in fact make the quoted statement.

Regardless of your or my POV about WND's political stance, WND is an RS about what WND did or did not say.

My edit was meant to make this point, and was meant to imply strongly that the edit ought to have better qualified the person being quoted aa a person whose opinions expressed on the topic at issue deserve to be considered, and ought to have better placed his quoted words into context. However, I made the edit in a hurry and did not make that point there very well at all. I was trying to suggest that if WP is to quote the words written by that person on that website, the writer's bonafides to pontificate on the topic ought to have been established a bit more solidly in the WP article than they had been. I do have a POV relating to the subject matter involved in my edit, but not a very strong POV about that, and I don't think that I allowed that weakly held POV to intrude into my editing of this WP article. My badly indicated point, in general, was that I wish than more WP editors would take pains to separate their personal POVs from their editing of WP articles. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wtmitchell: Perhaps you didn't notice my edit summary when I removed my comment from your page and removed the "not in citation" tag from Saudi Arabia. In my comment I said that WND did not contain anything about Neal Asbury saying Saudi clerics advising men to choose wives with an eye. I then placed a not in citation tag in the "Inbreeding" section of Saudi Arabia. Sa That was what my comment on your talk page about. However, I hadn't read the article carefully and when I read it again it turned out that Neal Asbury's comment was there. Therefore after realising my mistake, I removed the not in citation tag and removed my comment from your talk page as well. Sorry for the mistake. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

5 million

                                                  We've reached five million!!                                                  

The English Wikipedia now has over 5,000,000 articles! Woo-hoo!

Feel free to pass this message on! You can never celebrate too much. 5 000 000

Eman235/talk 18:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mad Max: Fury Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Top Gear. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia

"..If you try to add any more POV edits again I will instantly remove them. Now I suggest you move on. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2015".

See the complaint at WP:AN3. You seem to have broken WP:3RR, and the above quote suggests you intend to keep warring indefinitely. There may still be time for you to avoid a block if you will respond and promise to wait for consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: The quote never suggested that I would keep warring indefinitely. It was in reference to User:Msubotin repeatedly inserting his own views and reverting my edits without even waiting for the discussion to reach any conclusion. My comment said that if he keeps edit-warring and keeps inserting over what he thinks right is or not without the discussion to reach a conclusion then I would revert it. That's what it meant and it was easy to understand. However you are taking it as something else. Not only that while you notice my reverts it is surprising you don't notice that of User: DeCausa and User: Msubotin and warn them about edit-warring as well. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Did I miss the part where you promise to stop edit warring and agree to wait for consensus? If this answer is the best you can do, an admin may decide to go ahead with the block. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No but you missed the part where you don't warn others for the same behaviour and the actual meaning of my comment was that I won't tolerate his edit-warring. I won't revert anybody and get in edit-warring and I hope others do the same and wait for the discussion/consensus to reach a conclusion. Now as you have warned me, I hope you would be fair and warn DeCausa and Msubotin too in the same way because only warning one person while not warning others for the same thing is unfair and biased. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:KahnJohn27 reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

User: EdJohnston You just said you will not block me if I promised not to edit war and wait for consensus. But you've still blocked me. Not only that you just gave warnings to me and blocked me while ignoring the similar behaviour of others. This is a biased and unfair act and I will complain about your unfair actions on ANI.KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

KahnJohn27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User:EdJohnston has unjustly blocked me despite me promising not to edit war and wait for consensus. At the same time he has not done anything about User:Msubotin and User:DeCausa. I request Msubotin and DeCausa to be given the same punishment and be blocked as well. If not then I request to be immediately unblocked as this is an unfair treatment. Thank you.

Accept reason:

Unblocked per your promise not to edit war. "..if there is a dispute over it I will try to solve it through discussion." EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A promise to stop warring that's accompanied with a bunch of qualifications and disclaimers isn't enough. Since you have done a lot more reverts than anyone else since November 14 your promise didn't appear to be serious or complete. See WP:NOTTHEM for why blaming others is usually not persuasive. EdJohnston (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Oh so it's the number of reverts and not because of just reverts. That too it was more because multiple editors kept edit-warring with me. Besides I'm not blaming others, I'm mentioning what they did especially Msubotin who reverted so many times. It's not WP:NOTTHEM , it is THEM. And while they too have seriously violated the rules, you didn't even say a thing to them. What is that but unfair and biased behaviour on your part? My promise didn't appear serious? Did I start edit-warring again after the consensus? I was never goimg to. Is it that my promise didn't appear to be serious or you didn't care whether I made a promise or not? It is obviously nothing more than ineptness and unfair judgment on your part despite you fully well knowing that it was a biased complaint on User:DeCausa's part and he along with User:Msubotin were in serious violation of rules. KahnJohn27 (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Contrary to my original impression, it is possible that your promise to stop warring is sincere. If so I'll reconsider. Will you agree to stop editing Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia and its talk page for one month? If so I may be willing to lift the block. If you agree to stop editing, your promise should be made briefly and without making accusations against any other parties. EdJohnston (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What kind of statement is that? Why should I stop editing any article? I have comtributed a great deal to the article. However even though I only reverted their edits because they kept inserting without discussion, I realise it was wrong to repeatedly keep reverting it. If there is dispute about something in the article, I will not edit it and talk it out with others. I will not edit-war over it and if there is a dispute over it I will try to solve it through discussion. But I hope the others will do the same and discuss instead of repeatedly inserting their views without discussing. Besides I never made any accusations, their own edit history at the article shows I'm speaking the truth. I'm not ready to tolerate such a biased complaint on their part. Despite them reverting my edits, inserting their oen without discussion and repeatedly edit warring as well you haven't said anything to them and that is completely unfair. If you won't then I shall make complaints against them at ANI as well. Also I hope you don't take it offensively but I'll complaint about you as well as I feel as an administrator you have indulged in unfair actions and have turned a blind eye to violation of rules by others. As for edit-warring, no I won't do that again. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Thank you for accepting my unblock request. As said I won't get into any edit-warring from now on and I hope others won't as well. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, the moment you give up edit-warring, you would also realize that the only way you can get your results is by collaborating with other editors, not by fighting with them. You might also realize that, if you are on one side and two editors on the other side, you cannot get your way by edit-warring. So, collaboration is the key. Hopefully you will change your ways from now on. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You have misread the situation and ars just blaming me unfairly. I was always ready to collaborate but DeCausa and Msubotin started it by forcefully inserting their views without even caring to start a discussion. And even when they dud start a discussion they kept inserting their own views and kept reverting my oen edits while the discussion was going on and whenever I tried to stop them they still kept reverting it back. The only reason they even started a consensus is when they realised I wasn't going to agree with any of their proposals they won't be able to impose their views by force. I never really had any real problem with their edits. Many a times I agreed with their edits and let them freely add it and even removed some edits of mine. The only ones I removed were which I thought were unimportant, irrelevant and weren't of use to article. Yet they edit-warred repeatedly instead of waiting and discuss it out first. The only reason my revert count was higher cause both of them kept edit warring with me. And while you come here and advice me what to do, it is utterly shameful that you not only didn't say anything to those other two about their behaviour but you don't even say a word about them. This is a completely biased and unfair criticism on your part. KahnJohn27 (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Assuming that they both agree with each other, they get 6 reverts among them and you have only 3. So, what was your strategy for getting your results? - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't know how you figure up the revert number but it's more. Besides what results are you talking about? I don't care about any results. My edit was just to move a bunch of words from one section to another which. I would have agreed with their edits. That is "If" they ever tried to cooperate atleast genuinely. Unfortunately they didn't and they then blamed for not cooperating and brute forcing my edits when I simply wanted to stop them from inserting their own views without conclusion of discussion. And I got unfairly blocked for it even though I took it too far while they didn't even get one word in critisicism for their behaviour. Had they ever tried to duscuss first, then no edit-war would have ever happened. As I already said I'm not going to revert now or ever again even though they might do it themselves first and honestly I never wanted to get involved an edit-war in first place even though they might have started it because it is time wastage and ridiculous. I was always ready to discuss whatever they wanted and will discuss it as long as they really "want to discuss" genuinely, not just forcibly self-insert whatever they want to. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 21 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religion in pre-Islamic Arabia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuha. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Harith

"Read the source's pg no 203, nothing about Banu Harith there. Searched the whole book but there was nothing about Banu Harith"

I checked the source and I found it, "The terms and conditions of the Jews of Banu Harith are the same for the Jews of Banu Awf"

Kitāb Al-amwāl By Abū ʻUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām Page 203

If you go to page 201 it instructs how they are instructed to pay money as were the other Jew tribes as a tax. HamzaWahabi (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@HamzaWahabi: I didn't find anything about the Banu Harith on pg 203. But I'll try to ckeck the source again if it is there and I'll also check the previous pages. Thanks anyway. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Here is where I found it on Google Books, hope it helps https://books.google.com/books?id=LXVBBdEFySsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Kitāb+Al-amwāl+By+Abū+ʻUbayd+al-Qāsim+ibn+Sallām&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj62PTNrqrJAhVCrB4KHYZ1A8gQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=harith&f=false HamzaWahabi (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@HamzaWahabi: But this book you gave has no preview. How I'm supposed to check it? KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@HamzaWahabi: I've rechecked my edit on the Banu Harith article and found that by mistake I had added the wrong page number (page number 203) in the edit summary and my own talk page. The article listed page no 19, not page no 203 of the book in the source. And I didn't find anything on page number 19 of the book. I'm going to recheck the book including the page 19, 201 and 203. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

@HamzaWahabi: I've identified what happened. I checked this Kitab Al-Amwal from Archive.org. However I accessed the wrong one. This book is by another Islamic scholar Abu'l Muhsin Muhammad Sharfuddin not Abu Ubayd al-Qasim ibn Sallam. I haven't accesed and read the one by Abu Ubayd yet. A free readable version of it is difficult to find. This has been a case of mistaken identity so I'll revert my edit even though I haven't identified the Kitab Al-Amwal of Abu Ubayd yet. Sorry for that. I'll try to verify the contents of Ubayd's Kitab Al-Amwal. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I am surprised you were not able to open up a preview of the book on Google Books. I had no trouble opening it. The statement you are referring to is also also supported in Historical Dictionary of the Bedouins By Muhammad Suwaed, "those who wanted to remain Jewish were allowed to remain Jewish and had to pay a given token [jizya]". Best of luck and thank you. HamzaWahabi (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KahnJohn27/Archive_2&oldid=1143104436"