User talk:Mou3awiya Rafi3i

I love very much the articles about political persons, noble persons, and military persons.

February 2018

Hello, I'm C.Fred. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rupert Byron, 11th Baron Byron without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Sir is a prenomial, not part of a person's name. —C.Fred (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it would be helpful for other editors if you would please explain the reasons for your edits in the edit summary. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Talk pages

It is unproductive to keep making the same edits without engaging in discussion on the associated Talk pages. If you think your version is better, then it is incumbent on you to explain why this is the case. Agricolae (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipeida is a collaborative effort. When disagreements over content arise, editors are expected to discuss them on the relevant Talk pages (see, for example, WP:BRD). To do so, click on the Tab at the top of the page that says "Talk", just to the right of the one that says "Article". When material is challenged, it is your responsibility to prove that it is appropriate through Talk page discussion before restoring it. Failure to do so is a violation of WP:PROVEIT, as well as WP:BRD. Agricolae (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronisms

Since you are making the same types of edits multiple places, I will address some of them here.

1. The use of arms cannot be extrapolated back in time. To be appropriate on the page of a 16th century individual, the arms must have been used by that individual - this cannot be extrapolated from their use by descendants.

2. An infobox is there to provide information. As such it should actually name the individual it question, right at the top in bold.

3. The whole elaborate system of titular puffery that is now used was not in effect in the 17th century - the first Lord Byron was not called The Right Honourable The Lord Byron, and it is anachronistic to do so in his article. If you look, for example, at the account in Complete Peerage, it does not use the words 'The Right Honourable' anywhere in the article: it does not discuss styles at all and we take our lead from such coverage. Nor does it mention his arms at all. WP:UNDUE indicates we should be basing our coverage on that of secondary sources, and not throw in trivia just because we think it is interesting. What the styles would have been under the modern system that was not in use in his time is such trivia, in addition to being Original Research, since you are making it up. Giving the full heraldic achievement used by his distant descents is likewise WP:UNDUE. Agricolae (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The need for citations to sources

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

Wikipedia aims to show a neutral point of view. Please don't edit to try to publicise your opinions or point of view. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lord Byron. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
Naturally the same comments apply to any other pages. I have noticed that you have also repeated edits on some other pages too. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early Byron pages nominated for deletion

The pages you created on the early members of the Byron family have been nominated for deletion based on the lack of any indication of notability, their failure to give any references, and their genealogical nature. If you choose, you can participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard de Byron. Agricolae (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to recreate a page that was already deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, especially without making any major changes to what it was when being deleted. Changing the title won't help it last any longer. This guy doesn't warrant his own article per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Kennedy (1823–1858) and isn't likely to anytime soon if ever. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:12, 21 February 2018 (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)

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. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as you did at Patrick Kennedy (immigrant), you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. Twice re-creating a page for which you know full well a deletion discussion has reached a consensus to agree is unacceptable, and when in addition you change the title the second time you re-create it, it looks very much like an attempt to hide what you are doing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: FYI, this is the same editor who is currently blocked under this rangeblock, and has registered an account to evade the block. Disruption was severe enough to block a range for a month. I do not know who the prior editor was that was claimed for the initial block being violated. Scr★pIron^IV 18:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ScrapIronIV: Thank you very much for that information, it was invaluable. Following up from that I was able to find another account which this persistent disruptive editor has used. That other account is already blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet, which means there must be at least one other account. I have also checked the editing history of the IP range that you mention, and found that it has been in use by this disruptive editor since January 2017, and does not seem to have ever been used by anyone else. I can therefore block the range for far more than the one month block it is currently subject to, without fear of collateral damage on legitimate editors who might make useful contributions to the encyclopaedia. Naturally, i have also blocked this account indefinitely, and I shall look into reverting its numerous disruptive edits, and deleting any pages it has created. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, if you haven't already, could you also please salt both titles for the article this account tried to recreate twice? Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please Mr. JamesBWatson, UNBLOCK me, Please, and I will not create articles previosly deleted, Please. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mou3awiya Rafi3i (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been given instructions on how to request an unblock on the talk page of at least one earlier account, perhaps more than one. Unless and until you make such a request and it is accepted by an administrator you may expect all editing you do while evading blocks to be reverted, and any IP addresses or sockpuppets you use to evade your blocks to be blocked too. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]