User talk:Mohamad Aliff Shafiq Azizan

August 2014

Hello, I'm TheChampionMan1234. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Malaysia Airlines, 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. - The ChampionMan 1234 10:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Flag carrier, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Addition not supported by the reference provided. Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Your recent editing history at Kuala Lumpur International Airport shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. HkCaGu (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! 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)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! HkCaGu (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. I already explained to you about WP:MOSMALAYSIA. Seriously, you need to read edit summaries, leave edit summaries, and read others' replies. Otherwise, you WILL be blocked. HkCaGu (talk) 07:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As above. Please stop trying to add information that is against the current consensus Andrewgprout (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:SASA New Terminal Building, Ipoh, Perak, 2011.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SASA New Terminal Building, Ipoh, Perak, 2011.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Kuala Lumpur International Airport. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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 editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have expected, you have been blocked from editing again, this time for a longer time than before. You have continued to edit in a way which you are aware is against both consensus and Wikipedia's manual of style. Also, shortly after the expiry of the previous block for edit warring, you returned to edit warring on more than one of the articles where you had been doing so before that block. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and works by discussion and consensus, not by individual editors ignoring other editors' views and repeatedly trying to impose their own preferred versions, in the hope that everyone else will eventually give up and let them get their way. If you continue to edit in the same way you are likely to be blocked for much longer, perhaps even indefinitely. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This time it's for a month. Next time it may well be indefinite. When you combine edit-warring with edits such as this, which, in the context of your editing history was clearly disruptive, you make it very difficult to believe that you are likely to stop editing contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I now see that you have been doing the same on other articles, too. Maybe a month won't be enough, but I'll leave it at that for now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohamad Aliff Shafiq Azizan. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 20:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

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).

Mohamad Aliff Shafiq Azizan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Why My account must being blocked??? I not harm somebody else!!! I do the right caw. I is a Malaysian. So I know about my country...For more information about the Jawi script please click here.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for abusing multiple accounts to evade your previous block, which was issued for edit warring. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mohamad Aliff Shafiq Azizan for evidence. Huon (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2014 (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.