User talk:Thulqarnayn

Welcome

Hello, Thulqarnayn, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Please note that we are writing an encyclopedia. your recent edits have been reverted. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And please don't try to force it in. Discuss it on the talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ahmad al-Hassan al-Yamani shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if you revert again, particularly without any discussion on the talk page about why the content may be appropriate, you will be blocked.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Lyde/Kalbiyya

I know that full well. I wrote the article on Samuel Lyde including the words you quoted on my talk page. The point is that it is a notable (but not true) statement about the Kalbiyya. Lyde was the first to write about the Kalbiyya (1850s), his statements are famous, and what he said, however wrong, can't be left out. My suggestion is to revert your deletion but to include the following:"Lyde's account of the Kalbiyya has, however, been described as "colourful" but "unreliable" ", with this as the citation: ref>"Secretive sect of the rulers of Syria". The Telegraph. 5 August 2011. Retrieved X December 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)</ref> What do you think? DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Don't forget to sign your posts with ~~~~ per WP:SIGNATURE. DeCausa (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Your recent editing history at Ibn Nusayr shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 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.

Above warning also applies to your edit-warring on Al-Khaṣībī. DeCausa (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Khaṣībī/Ibn Nusayr

Open discussions on the talk pages of these articles rather than reverting: read WP:BRD. If you revert again you will be blocked. DeCausa (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DeCausa is this what you do on wikipedia? Defaming people and sects? And when they write otherwise than your bloody filth, you want them blocked?! May God curse you wicked snake!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thulqarnayn (talk • contribs) 01:54, 12 September 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not my "bloody filth", it's historian Matti Moosa's bloody filth. And I didn't include it in the article in the first place - I didn't write it and I have no idea whether what's in that article is "true" or not. What you seem to not get is that we are not here to put onto the internet the "truth" as we see it. All we are doing is reflecting what sources are saying, and those sources have to comply with specific criteria. This criteria is explained here. Now, it may be that a source is "wrong". But we are not allowed to use our personal opinion and knowledge to say it's wrong and take sourced text out of an article. In that situation you have to look for other sources that say it's wrong and include them as well in the article.But there are two qualifications to that. Firstly, those other sources have to fit the criteria as well (so not just any website) and where sources contradict each other then the points of view of all can be shown, but minority views can't be given greater prominence than majority points of view. This is explained in more detail here. These are rules we all have to work under, and you were blocked because you wouldn't follow them, and were edit-warring as well, not because I "got you blocked". If you show you are willing to accept these rules then I'm sure you'll be unblocked. It might help you, also, to read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. DeCausa (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. DeCausa (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}. ceradon (talk • edits) 14:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Al-Khaṣībī. ceradon (talk • edits) 05:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite Ceradon's warning, you've gone ahead and added your own unsourced WP:OR commentary here. DeCausa (talk) 15:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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 ~~~~}}. ceradon (talk • edits) 15:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]