Although some prefer welcoming newcomers with cookies, I find fruit to be a healthier alternative.
Hello, TybenFree, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
Some pages that have been vandalized repeatedly are semi-protected, meaning that editing by new or unregistered users is prohibited through technical measures. If you have an account that is four days old and has made at least 10 edits, then you can bypass semi-protection and edit any semi-protected page. Some pages, such as highly visible templates, are fully-protected, meaning that only administrators can edit them. If this is not the case, you may have been blocked or your IP address caught up in a range block.
Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like <ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing).
In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
What is a WikiProject, and how do I join one?
A WikiProject is a group of editors that are interested in improving the coverage of certain topics on Wikipedia. (See this page for a complete list of WikiProjects.) If you would like to help, add your username to the list that is on the bottom of the WikiProject page.
Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mauritania, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on French conquest of Algeria. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
I don't understand why it's always you targeting my edits and reverting them. What's there? Can you just calm down? The Ayyubid campaign to Ifriqiya was literally Saladin's decision. The information I added was correct. TybenFree (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly are you to warn me? Stop pretending like you're an admin I know that you aren't. I said the article lacks neutrality, the Arabs were not the only slave-masters and they could be also victims of slavery TybenFree (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you find strange about Sijilmasa being an archaeological site; I've actually visited it before, and numerous sources confirms this fact TybenFree (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TybenFree, anyone is allowed to warn other editors if they see them doing something against policy. Warnings are not restricted to admins. I just checked the information you added to Almohad architecture and it was not sourced. When you add content to an article, you should add a citation to support it. Expecting users to research your changes themselves or to check other related articles is not sourcing. See WP:V for information on our verification policy (and WP:BURDEN in particular), and WP:CITE for information on how to add citations. CodeTalker (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Almohad Caliphate 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skitash (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash Thank you, but I believe you shouldn't have reverted my edit since I was removing an erroneous addition. Could you please remove it again? I think you did unintentionally, probably you thought i was removing content from the original text, No I didn't. TybenFree (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are edit warring. That said, it does look like the most recent edits are not completely unsourced. On that basis I will unblock you. However you should regard this as a formal Warning that your editing has been generally disruptive. Edit warring is a no no. See WP:BRD. If an edit is reverted, unless the reversion itself is obviously disruptive, the next stop should be the article talk page where consensus should be sought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem thanks for the quick answer and for the link. I reverted the addition because it's wrong and makes no sense, I didn't remove anything from the original text, but it seems that @Skitash re added it again by mistake. TybenFree (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't start edit-warring again, as you did here. If you're reverted, it's time for the talk page. This has been explained to you many times now. R Prazeres (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Almohad Caliphate 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skitash (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop pretending like you're an admin? This would be the last time I ask you to stop doing so. Take this as a warning. TybenWelcome22:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, but I was tired of how they treat me, Skitash is the kind of editors that will revert you and refuse to discuss. Pure dictatorship. TybenWelcome08:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Almohad–Ayyubid war of 1187–1188 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Skitash (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are relying on a exemption that does not exist - this is a content dispute, not vandalism. Your entire user talk page is full of such misunderstandings of our policies regarding edit warring and content disputes. Skitash has three reverts, not four. -- Ponyobons mots21:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponyo I don't care about who created the page, I care about my contributions there. I sent a message to Skitash in which I tell them that I already know that the page has many problems, they simply refuse to discuss. The page doesn't only contain edits by the "sockpuppet", I actually disagree with their edits. Three reverts? Didn't I count well? TybenWelcome21:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in the details of your content dispute outside of enforcing the bright-line three-revert rule, which you violated. Skitash has three reverts, at 21:02 UTC, 21:11 UTC and 21:02 UTC. Their initial edit is not a revert.-- Ponyobons mots21:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, reverting all the edits of the page isn't a revert. You know what? Just block the shit out of me forever, I lost hope on this fucking hugely unreliable platform and many of its users. TybenWelcome21:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpgordon I couldn't see any content dispute there, I see only blanking an entire page without a valid reason, Skitash claimed that all the sources are outdated, which is totally wrong, the content I added is based on a modern reliable source.TybenWelcome08:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite precisely a content dispute. You and the other editor disagree about content. Am I missing some detail here that makes this dispute about content not a dispute about content? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇14:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpgordon If there was a content dispute they would have removed only the content that is supported by outdated sources, as they claimed (and I wouldn't have disagreed with them in this case). The fact is they removed ALL the content (literally all the page), their reason was that it was created by a sockpuppet, and they know very well that I was also contributing there. Do you see this as a normal action?
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).
I believe the three revert rule doesn't apply in my case, Skitash literally removed an entire page (in whcih I was contributing) from existence, is that really ok?? TybenWelcome23:34, 16 April 2024 (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.
Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mauritania, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Adakiko (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at French conquest of Algeria, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on French conquest of Algeria. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Hello! I'm M.Bitton. Your recent edit(s) to the page Almohad–Ayyubid war of 1187–1188 appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Trans-Saharan slave trade. Skitash (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Warning that your editing has been generally disruptive. Edit warring is a no no. See WP:BRD. If an edit is reverted, unless the reversion itself is obviously disruptive, the next stop should be the article talk page where consensus should be sought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
