User talk:Yassir Yusufzai

January 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Jinnah family has 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: Jinnah family was changed by Yassir Yusufzai (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.952258 on 2018-01-25T04:53:27+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rima Fakih, 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your recent editing history 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 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 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Persistent cross-article unsourced/self-formulated edits. - LouisAragon (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any more disruptive editing involving sourcing will also result in a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I happen to be an academic on Shia Islam and know the demographics of Iran better than the editors of this page" will not work here. See WP:EXPERT. You cannot remove referenced content simply using "I know better". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Bahá'í Faith. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr. K. 02:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as mentioned above, you cannot say "I happen to be an academic on Shia Islam and know the demographics of Iran better than the editors of this page." (as seen in this April 1 edit) without any proof. In simple fact, saying "better than the editors of this page" is uncivil and combative. You have all the appearances of a "truth warrior". Please change your methods to cooperative editing. Shenme (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Shia Islam in Egypt from 00:54, 1 April 2018 and to Bahá'í Faith from 02:32, 3 April 2018 are marked as minor, and your edit summaries use the word minor. Please note that your edits were not minor in the sense that the term is used at Wikipedia. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. For a more detailed explanation, please see the minor edit help page. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]