User talk:Peacekeeper-89

re:Criticism of Muhammad article edits

I'd like to invite both you and Cuchullain to discuss your ongoing "edit war" on the article's talk page to see if perhaps a solution can be found to the current situation, rather than the (in my opinion) pointless back and forth editing that's happening at the moment cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go to the talk page to justify the inclusion of that link. Please do not add it back in until you have done that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. For the record this is the version reverted to 1st revert 2nd revert 3rd revert Darrenhusted (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Muhammad

I'm not good as an English articles editor. But let me see what I can do.--O sama K^{Reply? on my talk page, please} 23:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peacekeeper, it is inappropriate to canvass other Wikipedians with the intention of influencing the results of a community discussion, as you have been doing. Please stop trying to subvert consensus by edit warring and canvassing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just asking help from someone who had Experience more then me, So It's a Friendly notices Peacekeeper-89 (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your message was sent to many editors, it was not neutrally worded, and it was intended to influence the outcome of the discussion in your favor. That's no "friendly warning".--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You copy and pasted your first request [1], [2] to two other users, forgetting to change the user name. You posted a fourth request [3] then changed the names on the second [4] and third [5]. Since the 24th September 2008 you have made 15 article edits and 12 of those have been to add unnecessary external links to the one article. You actually violated 3RR yesterday and could be blocked now, but I didn't file the report because I want to assume good faith, but if you persist in spamming that one page then you will end up with a block, no matter how much talk you engage in. I suggest you take a look at the help tab on the side of this page and re-read the policies and guidelines if you want to make a contribution to this encyclopedia. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only 4 or 3 Is this many to you ? and It's neutrally worded,Besides I didn't ask them to interpose in the discussion,because there's nothing to discuss Except the prejudice.I asked them to tell Is there a wrong in the links,or not ?thank youPeacekeeper-89 (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Four~~ Five users who have not edited this page frequently (or at all) is far too many; it's clear you're trying to skew the outcome of the discussion. Your message is not neutrally worded; you keep saying your links were removed "without good reason", when we have given you several good reasons on the talk page. Please return there and answer our very reasonable objectives, and stop trying to manipulate the discussion to get your way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]