User talk:LionAjk

September 2022

Hello, I'm Arjayay. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Religion in Nigeria have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. - Arjayay (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to say it again, please use edit summaries for your edits. If you continue without explaining your edits, you will be blocked. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen this isnt edit summary optional? Where does it say ypu have to leave a reason? LionAjk (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While it is not mandatory, edit summaries are strongly encouraged. Help:Edit summary#Always provide an edit summary explains why using edit summaries are important. -- LuK3 (Talk) 01:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but how can you say I can get blocked? LionAjk (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Apaugasma. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you unlinked one or more redlinks from Sabians. Often redlinks can be helpful, so we don't remove them just because they are red. They help improve Wikipedia by attracting editors to create needed articles.

In addition, clicking on the "What links here" special link (in the Wikipedia Toolbox at left) on a missing article shows how many—and which—articles depend on that article being created. This can help prioritize article creation. Redlinks are useful! Please only remove a redlink if you are pretty sure that it is to a non-notable topic and not likely ever to be created. Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Salma bint Amr, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 00:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Religion in Saudi Arabia has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of 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 material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continued edit warring

I see you are reverting several editors with zero article talk page discussion. Given your recent block for edit warring, I would be extremely careful about blind reverts with no talk page consensus. You're not even bothering to use edit summaries, which, combined with the number of reverts and your edit history, is unacceptable.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave edit summaries I thought they were optional but I will leave edit summaries when reverting for now on LionAjk (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Religion in Turkey into Turkey. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I didnt know that LionAjk (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#LionAjk regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

@LuK3, Ponyo, and Apaugasma: Take a look since none of your recent warnings for this editor have worked. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Arsi786 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arsi786. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What proof exactly is there saying I am a sockpuppet the accusations are not even correct

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).

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

Request reason:

what proof exactly is there saying I am a sockpuppet of arsi786 thats not quite fair roysmith even said "I looked at this in 08 July 2022 and couldn't get past "possible". Given the detailed diffs presented here, plus my own examination of the editing histories, I now see more than enough to call LionAjk a sock. There's still nothing solid on the CU side, so I'll just tag them as "suspected", although I think "proven" wouldn't be unreasonable."

How can you just permentaly block me and accuse me as someone else? The reasons aman gave could be applied to anyone my edits were different from arsi786 LionAjk (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're aware of the SPI since you posted there, and I don't find your explanation there credible. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.