Welcome!

Hello, Ishan87, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Fernando Torres, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article itself. He scored 22 goals in a season alone in Chelsea, yet his total count is shown to be only 20. I just cooy-pasted from other websites. I don't know what's "reliable" for you, but it's a huge shame that the Wikipedia page itself is so wrong about goal count of a worldwide known superstar! Ishan87 (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm HaeB. I noticed that you recently removed content from Aisha without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. HaeB (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those I removed was barely rumors and false stories. Authentic sources have disproved those accusations.

Ishan87 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Usama ibn Zayd, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Alivardi (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm William Harris. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Dire wolf have been undone because they did not appear constructive. I have left you a message at C. edwardii which may explain. Additionally from what I see on your talk page, please have a read of WP:RELIABLE sources. (Yes, I know, it is boring and tedious to read through, but you have to know this stuff if you are going to edit here. Master it, and nobody can challenge your edits.) If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. William Harris (talk) 07:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Aisha, you may be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 9 June 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 Aisha. You've deleted large portions of the article, which were well sourced, and replaced them with unsourced text. This does not look like improvement to the article. Please explain why these edits should not be dealt with as disruptive. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Aisha) for a period of 24 hours for persistent targeted disruption. 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 ~~~~}}.  —C.Fred (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Zakir Naik. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 02:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeeno my explanation is already with my intial edit, and my dating system is the current international system. Ishan87 (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Hamza Tzortzis has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Laplorfill (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed you've undone my revert of your edits on Zakir Naik. Objecting to the changes is fine, but undoing edits without explaining why can lead to an edit war. I had briefly explained this in the edit summary, but I reverted your edits removing the subject's birthday from the lead because per the Wikipedia Manual of Style MOS:OPENPARABIO, The first sentence should usually state: ... Dates of birth and death, if found in secondary sources (do not use primary sources for birth dates of living persons or other private details about them). This means that it is fine to include the birthday in the lead, even if it is mentioned later on, in order to provide the reader some basic context about the subject. You also reverted my second edit, which fixed some number formatting. Per MOS:BADDATE, we don't use ordinals in dates, such as 3rd or 4th. Also per MOS:MILLION, the first mention of a number such as 1 or 2 million should be spelled out instead of just using the shorthand. Please let me know if you have any further questions about these changes. Thank you. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 03:10, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeeno can you help with the Mufti Menk page. That other dude is deleting the infos for no reason! Ishan87 (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Shaykh Bilal Philips.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Shaykh Bilal Philips.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 12:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Yasmin Mogahed.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Yasmin Mogahed.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 12:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Abdurraheem green.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Abdurraheem green.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 12:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source/license for File:Mawlana Tariq Jamil.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Mawlana Tariq Jamil.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 13:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Mawlana Tariq Jamil.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement of https://twitter.com/tariqjamilofcl?lang=en. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 13:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Mufti tariq masud.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement - see https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCumT1HMTXegYzESyPKH3pVg. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Shaykh Bilal Philips.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement of https://www.youtube.com/user/aabphilips. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Yasmin Mogahed.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvLyHJY79_8. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 13:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Abdurraheem green.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aYiv9FI2HA&t=8s. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bilal Philips, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page African. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ishan87! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Abdur Raheem Green that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:56, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. (You need a reliable source to state his jurisprudence.) ParthikS8 (talk) 05:40, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Hanafi, you may be blocked from editing. You appear to be stalking two editors and blindly reverting their edits. Notfrompedro (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All encyclopaedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. I am fairly sure that the Shia point of view is a significant point of view. It does not matter whether you or I think it is hateful. Bowdlerising the article on Aisha‎ is not a helpful thing to do. The article should record what they really think of her.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not go around changing around changing the dating system in articles without establishing consensus first. See MOS:ERA. The "CE"/"BCE" is an American invention. I see no reason why the rest of us should be forced to do everything the American way.-- Toddy1 (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please comply with MOS:ERA. Wikipedia accepts both AD and CE notation for era, and the policy is that if a page has been done with one notation, editors should not just change it to the other, but should seek consensus on the talk page first.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Aisha‎, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Your edit misrepresented the cited source.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to Talk:Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, you may find the advice helpful. Do you have any objection to me adding a new heading above your comment about tags at the top of the article at Talk:Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr?-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Help:Interwiki linking. To get a link to Arabic Wikisource, use [[:wikisource:ar: followed by the article name and then ]]. For example, wikisource:ar:موطأ_الإمام_مالك/كتاب_الرضاع.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, you don't have to inform me about small changes like this Ishan87 (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Umm Kulthum bint Abi Bakr. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- Toddy1 (talk) 07:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SPQR. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Shiekh Imran Hossein, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history.

Wikipedia is striclty against vandalism. SPQR10 (talk) 03:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SPQR if anything you're accusations against me itself is vandalism. Check your talkpage and please choose your words more respectfully. Ishan87 (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TITLECON, pages closely associated with an article should be consistent in terms of naming and spelling. If you firmly believe that Umar and not Omar is the correct and common spelling of the name in English, you should open an RM on Talk:Omar and seek consensus from the community. Otherwise your edits will be marked as vandalism. Keivan.f^Talk 06:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you cannot revert more that three times on a single page, as you did with Umm Kulthum bint Jarwal. Otherwise you could potentially get blocked. Keivan.f^Talk 06:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using synonymous or original title doesn't go against WP:TTITLECON terms. You're changing the pages for no reason whatsoever. Umar is the name more accepted for muslims and recognized by Western historians as well. I don't see a single reason for you to have any problems with this. Ishan87 (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our opinions don’t matter and I have no strong feelings about it anyway. All I ask for is consistency in article titles. Resolve the issue on Talk:Omar, provide sources to prove your claim that "Umar is the name more accepted for muslims and recognized by Western historians as well"; seek consensus from the community and then the main page and any associated pages can be moved to the title deemed accurate by all the users. Keivan.f^Talk 06:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just my opinion. These pages always been like this and we were all cool with this. If u don't have any feelings about this than why are you so obsessed about this and going on such lengths for this small issue? I just just want you to put the old versions back. If this was a problem then admins would've changed it long time ago. Trust me, there's a better way for you to increase your edits. Ishan87 (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any pages can be moved and changed at any point in time. Names and titles are not set in stone. The page about the 2nd Caliph was at Umar for several years before being moved to Omar in Sep 2020 based on a new CONSENSUS. Anything that comes out for your mouth or my mouth is considered a biased opinion until you discuss it with others and get their support. Until then, the main page will remain at Omar, and so will the associated pages per WP:TITLECON. Your refusal to take part in the conversation will not help you case either. Keivan.f^Talk 06:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Umm Kulthum bint Jarwal 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.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@toddy1 Thanx 4 letting me know, but I stopped already but he didn't though. Anyway I rest this case and live it for the admins to decide. He changed all the related pages even though I explained why I think it should not have been. What is your say on this. I'm not going to edit again, whatever happens, you guys resolve this issue Ishan87 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised that the page on Umar ibn al-Khattab has been moved to "Omar". I do not think it should have been. Only four people took part in the discussion at Talk:Omar#Requested move 19 September 2020, and I did think that the arguments made by Khestwol were correct.

Regarding your edit war, there are lessons you could learn from it, so you do better in the future.

• Keivan.f made five edits at 20:04-20:20, 29 August 2021. He/she did not use edit summaries explaining what he/she was doing - and he/she should have. He/she had not used the article talk page to explain the edits.
• You reverted at 06:02, 30 August 2021. You made one mistake - you should have made an edit summary. You should have explained why you objected.
• Keivan.f made a post on your talk page at 06:02, 30 August 2021 that explained his/her edits in terms of a Wikipedia policy.
• Keivan.f reverted you at 06:03, 30 August 2021. He/she marked his edit as a minor edit, which would have been OK if he/she had been reverting clear vandalism, but that was not the case. He/She made no edit summary.
• At this point, what you should have done is to use the article talk pages to make your case i.e. Talk:Umm Kulthum bint Jarwal for Umm Kulthum bint Jarwal and maybe Talk:Omar for Umar ibn al-Khattab.
• Only after making your case on the article talk page, would it have been right to revert.
• By now it was essential to use edit summaries to say what you were doing, and it would have been smart to reference the article talk page when you made the revert - a good edit summary for your revert would have been something like "revert undiscussed changes by Keivan.f - see Talk:Umm Kulthum bint Jarwal"
• Also, Keivan.f had improperly marked his revert as a "minor edit" - there is a template message for that - you can find the warning at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace. You should have placed the warning on his/her talk page, with an edit summary marked either "August 2021" or "Improper use of minor edits checkbox".
• When Keivan.f had made two reverts - you should have place the edit warring template message on his/her talk page, with an edit summary like "Edit warring at Umm Kulthum bint Jarwal"
• When Keivan.f had made three reverts - you should have made a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. There are instructions on what to do. At this point it was essential that you did not make four reverts. You should have done the report so that it made it clear that in less than 24 hours Keivan.f had made his/her controversial edits four times (the initial edits and three reverts). That would probably have got him/her a 48 hour block. You could have waited 25 hours from your last edit and reverted him/her. If he/she had reverted you after his/her block had edited, you could have reported him to the admin who blocked him saying that Keivan.f had resumed edit warring after the end of his/her block. In that case it does not matter that it is only one revert, he/she would probably have got a one week block. And you could have reverted him/her after he/she had been blocked.

Because you made mistakes, he/she got away with it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh, I don't want him blocked or punished. He actually agrees with my point surprisingly, you can check the Omar page talk page. I just want this issue resolved that's it. The pages should be renamed back to their former titles, that's the very reason I wanted to change back. My lesson is, I will never waste my time over any edit war again. Ishan87 (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Islamic Barnstar
		Your knowledge of Islam is really appreciated, I am follow you for past many days, I can't wait to give you a barnstar for your knowledge of Islam, Thanks for you contribution in the field of Islam, Assalamualaikum! Xpërt100 (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you brother. I also appreciate your hardwork and dedication. But I feel like we should limit our time in the wikis bcz this place is full of mess where facts doesn't matter that much :/ Ishan87 (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! It's true brother. Xpërt100 (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bilal ibn Rabah. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]