User talk:Kimokono1990

Welcome!

Hello, Kimokono1990, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one of your contributions does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 00:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Muslim Brotherhood appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ahmed Mansour (journalist). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Stressing one specific event in order to slant an article towards your own point of view, and then adding your own conclusions, it not acceptable - please see WP:UNDUE -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV editing

I have once again removed the additions you've added to a number of articles. Wikipedia has very strict policies with regard to ensuring material is reliably sourced, especially when it comes to biographies of living people. All information must also be worded neutrally and not be skewed to present a specific point of view. All of your recent edits violate both of these core policies and therefore have been removed. If you would like to make any potentially controversial edits you need to discuss them on the article talk pages and gain consensus prior to making any changes. Continued addition of POV material will likely result in the restriction of your editing privileges, so it is important that you take the time to read and understand our core policies. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 13:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Salim Al-Awa

Hi, your addition to the BLP is a bit contensious indeed, and has been removed by me and another user, please do not replace it again without support, please discuss on the talkpage . thanks Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki adoption

Hi, as you are a new user today and seem to be getting reverted and your additions are creating discussions at noticeboards, I would recommend you consider WP:ADOPTION this is very beneficial to new users . Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with Off2riorob - I've just reverted your recent edit at Egypt - the topic it discussed is an important one, and no doubt should be discussed in the article, but not as the partisan, biased commentary that I just removed. TFOWR 12:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued POV e3dits

Please take the time to read and ensure you understand our policies and guidelines regarding neutrality and verifiability prior to further editing articles - you obviously have a specific and strong point of view with regard to polictics and this is reflected in your editing, the result of which is non-neutral presentation of information. This is the case with Ahmed Mansour (journalist), where I have reverted your edits as POV. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 14:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again POVs over and over again

Perhaps you're right, perhaps you aren't, now about Copts in the article Egypt. But, as your contributions aren't sourced, we can't know. This way your contributions, no matter how precious they were, have to be deleted according to WP policies. If you would you like to learn how this invention works, please read what you've been told and reminded above. Cheers. Zack Holly Venturi (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Salim Al-Awa

The source doesn't say anything about Al-Awa so it can't be added to the article on him. Please read WP:BLP about how we have to be careful with what we say about living people. You will be blocked if you keep adding the material.--Misarxist 16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mohammad Salim Al-Awa. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You also need to read WP:BLP. You are welcome to discuss this at WP:BLPN but if you add this material again today you will be blocked, if you continue to add it later you are likely to be blocked unless you get get consensus for it. So, don't add it again unless other editors agree. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Mohammad Salim Al-Awa, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2013 Egyptian coup d'état. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lihaas (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]