User talk:Unrememberedperson

September 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Saddle Brook, New Jersey have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Saddle Brook, New Jersey was changed by Unrememberedperson (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.859954 on 2021-09-27T18:58:52+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can the bot just piss off from my editing?

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Bedouin, 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. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Harem, you may be blocked from editing. Uness232 (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to censor or remove encyclopedic content based on the fact that it is offensive to some readers, as you did at Go-go dancing, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia is not censored, and attempts to censor encyclopedic content will be regarded as vandalism. Uness232 (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Presidency of George W. Bush. Uness232 (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unrememberedperson, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Unrememberedperson! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

why did I get a warning?

See my edit summary in Bush’s presidency page. Uness232 (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works

In this edit, you reintroduce controversial content based on unreliable sources, with the edit summary:

Please correct me at the talk page if you are an admin if I am not netruel at my wording} I stated that why Aisha married 19 not 9 according to some sources as well as why she married at 9 if she did or she married at 13 or 12 and why she married at a young age if she did even. I also mentioned that there were child marriages in the Byzantine empire at the time as well.

That's not how Wikipedia works. You have attempted to make this change in the past, and had your changes reverted because a) they defy neutrality and b) they are based on unreliable sources. Once your edits were reverted, WP:BRD requires that you should enter into a discussion at the article's talk page to try to justify the changes you'd like to see. You don't get to just make the changes and say "if I'm wrong, correct me on the talk page". On the contrary, you are the one who needs to start the discussion on the talk page as to why you think your version should supersede the version that existed before your edits. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok.

3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Muhammad's wives 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Arjayay (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Rsk6400 (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Criticism of Muhammad. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Aisha 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You have misrepresented sources in your edit. The WP:BURDEN is on you to support your changes on the talk page. Please do so. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WTH I am not in an edit war lol

@Unrememberedperson: this was about your edit-warring two days ago. Today's new warning is in the above section 'October 2021'. This is your last warning. Thanks for taking it into consideration, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 23:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unrememberedperson & criticism of religion. Thank you.☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 18:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]