User talk:NotAlpArslan

September 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Berbers. 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 lose editing privileges. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are risking a block

Please undo your last change at Berbers. You appear to have violated the WP:3RR rule, which bars four reverts in 24 hours. Unless you respond appropriately, I or any other administrator may choose to block your account. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are reported sir, i provided a summary. Bye don't harrass me. If you Block me you're just litteraly doing your Job. regards. NotAlpArslan (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Berbers

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 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 below this notice: {{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.

See the discussion above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A more extensive complaint of the same edit war was posted at the 3RR board, but it has been deleted as no longer relevant. EdJohnston (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Maldives, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. New figures need a new source. Thomas.W ^talk 06:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aknowledged, that edit wasn't for any vandalism purpose, it was just a forgetting of source.

My best regards

Signed

NotAlpArslan (talk) 00:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the stick

Please just let the issue at WP:ANI go. The only thing you will accomplish by further posting at ANI is scrutiny of your behaviour. You may wish to read WP:BOOMERANG before posting more. Chillum 00:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second this. Chillum probably just saved you from a block by putting your new post into an archived section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is untolerable behaviour, the user should be banned, he insulted me. NotAlpArslan (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate the way you accepted the outcome. If we banned everyone who made a personal attack we would run out of editors pretty quick. I hope that the warning I gave to the user demonstrates to you that we do not accept abusive comments here. Chillum 00:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do apperciate your taken measures :) best regards and have a great day/night wherever you are NotAlpArslan (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved your post

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#talk_page_vandalism.2C_User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi

Please read WP:BOOMERANG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi first, the user harrassed me. You had to leave the task to admin who would take measures :) NotAlpArslan (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As below, the measure I have taken is to block you for 72 hours for your spurious complaints and characterizing good faith concerns about your user page as vandalism. This is a pattern of behavior which you were almost blocked for a couple days ago. Resuming this behavior when your block expires will mean much longer subsequent blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User NeilN abusing me, accusing me, and blocking me for no reason.

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).

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

Request reason:

There is no reason for the block , i reported someone who harrassed me not once not twice on my talk page and i got this block{

Decline reason:

You were blocked for making unsubstantiated accusations against another user. You are doing the exact same thing in your unblock request. You are quickly wearing out your welcome. HighInBC ^{(was Chillum)} 14:55, 22 September 2015 (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.

Berbers

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Berbers. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. BrainlarvAmazigh (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, I have to say, your edit summary here isn't particularly useful either. Whether something is "moral" or "immoral" is, honestly, irrelevant in developing an encyclopedia. What is of significance is whether the material meets our guidelines and policies. Your casting such aspersions on individuals who may legitimately disagree with your actions in no way helps your own case. I would very strongly suggest you resist the urge to describe your fellow editors in this fashion from this point forward. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paris

The source you cite clearly says 43 confirmed and "as many as" 100 dead. We don't report rumors as facts. We try to stick with the facts. Give it time. The truth will out. Rklawton (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are at risk of violating 3RR. This is your only warning. Rklawton (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, hi, the hostages are all dead. 43 are confirmed. 143 deads. NotAlpArslan (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing good-faith edits as vandalism is not acceptable. Don't do that again. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi stop vandalizing the article about the Berbers

Stop deleting the sources that I provided and the informations about the Berbers population around the world, and by country.

Tsarisco (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for editing while logged out, continuing to refer to good faith edits as vandalism and making frivolous noticeboard reports.. 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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you've continued to edit disruptively while logged out, I've extended the block to one month. Continue to do so and the next block will be an indefinite one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that indefinite does not mean infinite. This block was for continued disruptive editing while logged out, including at Braceface where you incorrectly assert that flagicons belong in TV infoboxes. They do not. Your silent resubmission of an ethnic photo gallery here, despite another editor's clearly explained rationale, was also disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Join user Group Wikmedia Morocco

Hello, I am contacting you because I have seen that you are a Moroccan Wikipedia users. In October 2015, we have created a Moroccan Wiki user group, it is gathering all Moroccan/interested in Morocco Wikimedians in order to be together and discuss common issues. Morevoer, being in a group gives the opportunity to have events and participate in Wikimedia conferences. Please join us on the group in order to make our Moroccan community bigger. You can do that either by contacting me or by joiging the facebook group by searching "ويكيبيديا المغرب - ⵡⵉⴽⵉⴱⴻⴷⵢⴰ ⵍⵎⵖⵔⵉⴱ - Wikipedia Morocco" Regards -- Anass Sedrati (talk) 12:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!