User talk:Kiftaan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:46, 10 December 2011

Welcome!

Hello, Kiftaan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kingturtle (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011

Hello! I'm a bot created by another Wikipedia editor. I wanted to let you know that I removed a link that you recently added to the page Koche Sesame here. I did this because http://www.flickr.com/photos/kabulpublicdiplomacy/sets/72157628232390399/with/6435880313/ is probably inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Instead of linking to an external image, you can find images already available or use the upload wizard if you'd like to add new free content.

We appreciate your help in making Wikipedia better for everyone. If I made a mistake, feel free to undo my edit. If you have any questions, you can ask at the Help desk.

Thank you! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in International co-productions of Sesame Street, makes articles harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Christine (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Please understand what WP:VANDALism is. Accusations of vandalism (such as [1]) should not be levelled at good-faith edits that you disagree with.

Furthermore, you edit summary asserts not sourced addition which is obviously wrong, and continues but deliberate falsification which violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. If your temper is running too high to edit politely, please step away from the keyboard William M. Connolley (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You replied on my takl page. Can I draw your attention to the edit notice there, which says: You are welcome to leave messages here. I will reply here (rather than on, say, your user page). Conversely, if I've left a message on your talk page, I'm watching it, so please reply there. Accordingly, I've moved your comment here:

Hi. I think you made a quick judgement on me without realizing what is going on. The source he used does not say "Sunnis 75-90%". [2] This my friend is very important because there are all the world's top experts on Islam saying that Sunnis are 80-90% and this one Wikipedia editor User:PassaMethod comes and lowers the number most likely for personal satisfaction. In this case it is considered vandalism and deliberate falsification. He ignored the talk page as I have made a clear point on why the number should avoid the 75% because it is clearly false.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, please don't use "This my friend". Perhaps it works in your culture; in mine, it is offensive over-familiarity.

Now, the substance:

User:PassaMethod comes and lowers the number most likely for personal satisfaction - please don't speculate on others motives
In this case it is considered vandalism: no, it is not considered vandalism: please read the links I've provided.
and deliberate falsification - again, no.

Discussing the true percentage on the talk page: fine. Accusing good-faith editors of vandalism and deliberate falsification: no William M. Connolley (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fine. I'm not speculating. When someone is constantly lowering the percentage of Sunnis even after they know that all sources do not agree with the lower number it makes it quite clear what the motives of the editor are, especially when you see him editing articles pertaining to Islam. You gonna have to make the right decision here on who's side you are. I believe that Wikipedia should discourage people who force their minor view on everyone. Anyway, have a nice day and please try to understand where I'm coming from. I may be a new editor but that doesn't mean I should be treated lesser than those who have been here for a longer period.--Kiftaan (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 :: Discussing the true percentage on the talk page: fine. Accusing good-faith editors of vandalism and deliberate falsification: no [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 14:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 :::Ok, fine. I'm not speculating. When someone is constantly lowering the percentage of Sunnis even after they know that all sources do not agree with the lower number it makes it quite clear what the motives of the editor are, especially when you see him editing articles pertaining to Islam. You gonna have to make the right decision here on who's side you are. I believe that Wikipedia should discourage people who force their minor view on everyone. Anyway, have a nice day and please try to understand where I'm coming from. I may be a new editor but that doesn't mean I should be treated lesser than those who have been here for a longer period.--[[User:Kiftaan|Kiftaan]] ([[User talk:Kiftaan#top|talk]]) 14:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
-==December 2011==
-[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] Your recent editing history at [[:Islam]] shows that you are in danger of breaking the [[WP:3RR|three-revert rule]], or that you may have already broken it.  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.  '''Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a [[WP:BLOCK|block]].'''
-If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's [[WP:TALK|talk page]] to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors.  You can post a request for help at a relevant [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]].  In some cases, you may wish to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]].  You may still be blocked for [[WP:EDITWAR|edit warring]] even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> [[User:PassaMethod|<font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method</font>]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="orange" face="papyrus">talk</font>]] 10:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)