User talk:SleeplessNight12

Welcome

Hello, SleeplessNight12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Eperoton (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and guidelines for your review

Based on your recent activity on multiple articles in which you added an identical passage (and which I have removed), you should be aware of some Wikipedia guidelines:

Wikipedia:Edit warring - discuss on the article's talk page instead of engaging in a revert war.
WP:BURDEN - if someone reverts an addition you made, the burden is on you to build a consensus for your addition by discussion on the talk page.
Wikipedia:Primary sources - criticism needs to be cited to reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not primary sources such as Hadith, Quran, Bible, Islamic websites, etc. Criticism should ideally be cited to scholarly critics, or at least notable critics. "Common knowledge" or tribal knowledge isn't acceptable.
WP:SYNTHESIS - what you wrote basically synthesized a conclusion from sources that don't actually state that conclusion. This is the main reason I reverted your changes.

I understand you're trying to do good work here. Please be aware that continuing down the path you're on won't be fruitful. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SleeplessNight12, In addition to what Anachronist wrote here, let me point you again to the guideline requiring attribution when copying material within Wikipedia (WP:COPYWITHIN). You replied to the message about it on Talk:Wahy, but you keep on copying without attribution. This is a form of copyright violation, which is taken seriously by the admins. Eperoton (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I removed that on which you complained. Good luck --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Criticism of Islam into Criticism of the Quran. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to do that always. Perhaps, in several cases you can help? Thank you so much. Have a wonderful day! SleeplessNight12 (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every editor needs to learn how to do this, and I can help you learn. Since you haven't been using edit summaries, I'm not sure if you know how. If you don't, please see WP:ES and practice in your sandbox to make sure you're comfortable using edit summaries. Let me know you have trouble with that part. Eperoton (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do know how to use edit summaries --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Any time your copy content that other editors had created from one article to another, just include the following in the edit summary: copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution You may change the wording; the important part is giving the name of the article you're copying from in the edit summary. Let me know if anything else is unclear. Eperoton (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. I will try to do it. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SleeplessNight12, on your 18 April edit to Quran, you copied a large amount of text from History of the Quran without attributing it in your edit summary. Please take care to follow the instructions that Diannaa provided to attribute copied text properly. Thank you. Schazjmd (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In my defense, I added a lot of that material in "The History of The Koran"... so it felt like copying myself. But definitely, other people were there before me. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full citations

Hello! You only inserted a short Harvard style citation without giving the full citation in Date of birth of Jesus‎. It makes it difficult for us other editors to know what you're citing if the title and journal name is missing. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, it's very easy or even automatic to add full citations if you're citing a journal or a webpage, you just need the DOI or the URL. Thank you :) – Þjarkur (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I will see to it. Thanks! SleeplessNight12 (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Alfred the Great

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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 you 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, fixed it. --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aesop

I see you're a new editor and are still feeling your way. If you look at the image profusion section of the Aesop talk page you'll see that there have been several objections to the image of Aesop (under the name of the artist Hartmann Schedel) that you keep using. If you persist in ignoring consensus without giving a valid reason, you will again place yourself in danger of being blocked from using Wikipedia. Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. I did not know this. Thank you for the warning. I appreciate it --SleeplessNight12 (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been very busy since joining, but also that you almost invariably fail to provide edit summaries. You claim above to know all about this policy, so one must assume that you do not care to show this courtesy to other users. Please be warned that such an attitude will continue to get you into trouble. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in context

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.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in context. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Catholic Church sexual abuse cases. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Contaldo80 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for various violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as outlined in the pertinent incidents report.

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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 14:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

SleeplessNight12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been very regretful of how I handled myself in conversation with others. I sincerely apologize to User:Contaldo80 for saying stupid things I did not mean. I was a good contributor here and I miss being able to contribute more of what I can. I promise NEVER to repeat my behavior and say such stupid things. I promise this will not be repeated. I will behave myself and will not call other users names. I simply wish to get back to editing and contributing, and there is a lot I have to contribute. Please, give me another chance. And as I indicated, I FULLY understand that this was my fault 100% and it was my stupid behavior that got me banned. I beg forgiveness and simply wish to be able to contribute again. I will not repeat this behavior. I promise! Thanks SleeplessNight12 (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It is regarded as much too soon to appeal this block. Please heed comments from other editors at WP:AN and wait a few months before appealing again. See also WP:SO. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 22 May 2019 (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.

It's a pretty good appeal. But per the other admin who closed the Incidents report, early appeals may be ill-advised. So as the blocking admin, I'm not gonna unblock myself (especially seeing that this is a community ban), but I have no immediate objection to lifting the block if consensus forms to that effect. El_C 20:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is early to post an unblock request. I'd like to see more conversation on the AN thread. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SleeplessNight12, I have added a link to your unblock request to AN: here. El_C 04:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. I really hope I will get a second chance. I apologize for my misdeeds and vow that I will never do that again. @Contaldo80:, I apologize for being an idiot, I vow to never behave like that anymore. I am so sorry. I hope you can forgive me. SleeplessNight12 (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a CU block.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the Quran moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Sources for the Quran, does not have enough sources and compleyte citations as written to remain published. It needs more complete citations from reliable, independent sources -- as they are listed now, the majority of them are missing information that would allow for them to be verified. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline in part due to more complete citations in the Reference list, and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. FULBERT (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sources for the Quran concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Sources for the Quran, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Sources for the Quran

Hello, SleeplessNight12. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Sources for the Quran".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]