Welcome to Wikipedia, Flagrantedelicto! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
Gigs and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
helpme}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Gigs ( talk) 22:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Toddy1. Another editor noticed that you made a change to an article, Yazid I, but you didn't provide a reliable source. The other editor removed it for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think he made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Toddy1. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Yazid I seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. In addition it was uncited 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. -- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Yazid I. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 10:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not think you understand the concept of citations. You should add reliable sources as citations which would allow someone to check that the information you added is valid and so they can find more information. Web sites, (preferably English, but other languages are acceptable), books, newspaper articles and such. You can see how the other citations on that page were added they begin with <ref> and end with </ref>. For example, if you were citing a book the way to do it would <ref>Smith, ''Book title'', 2nd edition, p21-2.</ref> This would show up as something like [3]. Clicking on that would take you to the references section and you would see "Smith, Book title, 2nd edition, p21-2.". You could then add some more details about the book to the list of sources.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 11:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Yazid I shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Favonian ( talk) 16:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
When you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ~~~~.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not put a level 2 heading in front of all your posts - when it is clear that they are just a continuation of previous discussions.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ali, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- SpidErxD ( talk) 13:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
You wrote "With all due respect, please don't place me in the category of the people you have come across here on Wikipedia edit history and its ceaseless POV-pushing vandals." This remark is uncalled for. I have not made any personal attack on you. I treat you with respect. Please do the same for me.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
January 14 is the most widely accepted date for Antony's birth. There is at least one alternative date or time frame, but the way you're inserting the information is confusing: you're placing it before the footnote that verifies January 14. Huzar pp. 10–11 fails verification; these pages don't say anything about the date of Antony's birth. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Mark Antony#Birthday. Cynwolfe ( talk) 02:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Please could we discuss the issue of whether Muawiyah was the first or second Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty at Talk:Muawiyah I#First or second Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 07:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Try to reveal another editor's real name again, and you'll be blocked so fast your head will spin. This is not a matter for discussion. Email me or the oversight team if you have any questions. Someguy1221 ( talk) 02:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No I don't really see a need to discuss this. I made an unintentional error. I just didn't like the way you informed me of my accidental, unintentional revelation. Let's drop the matter here and now. My contributions on WP outweigh any undesired conflict. Is that understood (?) Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 02:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I see your point. Such responses from anyone does come across as threatening. I guess I need to not miss taking my High BP prescriptions in a timely manner (seriously, no humour intended). I will ease off. But keep in mind (for the record), it was fellow WP editor Cynwolfe who initiated the personal attacks by calling me "ignorant". This is a matter of open record which anyone can view in the Mark Anthony Talk Page section. And I forgot to add, me being warned that I will be blocked so fast that my head will spin could also be perceived as a threat (especially to someone with High BP medical condition). Keep that in mind, as well. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 03:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the apology. Thanks. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 00:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm required to inform you about this report I made at ANI. Cynwolfe ( talk) 02:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
At Mark Antony you deleted [1] the text " (the calculation is described as including "room for judicious interpretation")" with an edit summary saying "Deleted entry as the recalculated date does have attribution: Classical scholar Max Georg Gerhard Radke; please see Talk Page for explanation." As the text that I added said nothing about attribution but was a comment (from Donna Hurley) on the recalculated date, your edit summary was clearly misleading. Please don't let this happen again. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Flagrantedelicto. I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. I have been reviewing your contributions on the Mark Anthony talk page as a result of the report posted at WP:ANI and can see some ongoing problems with the way you are handling the discussion there. Some examples of recent problematic edits, though virtually every edit you made on that page has contained veiled insults of some sort. This violates our policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. These are examples only:
Questioning people's intelligence and motivation is a bad idea, and violates our WP:NPA policy. And asking them about their physical health is not done; it's quite simply none of your business, and is completely irrelevant to a content discussion on this wiki, even if you choose to first reveal information about your own health. Please focus your comments strictly on the content discussion, not on the other editors, their motivations, their health, or their level of intelligence. This is not an exhaustive list. Further violations of our WP:NPA policy could result in your account being blocked from editing. -- Dianna ( talk) 04:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
In your post on Talk:Yazid I at 00:50, 1 May 2013, you said:
This was abusive. Please could you delete these words from your otherwise useful posting.
We could all be abusive to people we disagree with on some points. On the whole life works better if we treat each other politely.
If you believe that there is something wrong with being a citizen of Saudi Arabia, or with being a Salafi, then please be careful not to express these views on Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 07:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I would have to somewhat disagree with your assessment of my response to Sayom. Being described as a shill is not being abusive. First of all, I stated that he sounded like a Saudi-Salafi shill...I didn't openly state that Sayom WAS a Saudi-Salafi shill. Please make note of the syntax and semantics of the English language. Also, the Merriam-Webster/Dictionary.com definition of shill are the following excerpts:
shill noun Definition of SHILL 1 a : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler) b : one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter
shill [shil] Show IPA Slang. noun 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc. 2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
Consequentially, the definition of shill is really not abusive...It is certainly not flattering, but it is not abusive or profane. It is more of an unfavourable criticism, if anything else. I also would appreciate it if you would re-evaluate lecturing fellow WP editors such as myself. You have probably never even been to Saudi Arabia. If you had, then you would know that it is Saudi law that a woman cannot even drive a car there by herself and has no individual legislative rights. I have been there a few times. Here is a clip from a WP article itself:
For me to go to any government agency or to the court to buy or sell property, as a woman I am obligated to bring two men as witnesses to testify to my identity, and four male witnesses to testify that the first two are credible witnesses, and actually know me. Where is any woman going to find six men to go with her to the court?! It’s hard for me to get my legal rights...the solution is to use one’s connections, pay a bribe or be sharp-tongued. --Loulwa al-Saidan, real estate investor
Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 10:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not hate Saudi Arabia or its people. I just stated a legislative fact. Saudi Arabia has laws that are not exactly fair to all members of its society. The United Nations and Amnesty International also have problems with inequity in several countries worldwide, one of whom is Saudi Arabia (which is very high up on their list). I was responding to Toddy1, not you. So you have no business responding to my correspondence with Toddy1. I hope you understand this point well. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 21:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
In case you are under the impression that I am making up my citation from a Saudi citizen whose views were cited right here on WP, here is the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Toddy1, I don't want to get into to an unnecessary session of lecturing or being lectured here. Sayom may respond as there is no way to stop Sayom, obviously. It is Sayom's right of free thought and speech. But it is also my right to react with my opinion regarding Sayom's response. And I repeat to you or Sayom, what I put on YOUR or MY talk page in direct correspondence between us is really none of Sayom's business. That I will stand by so there is no reason to go back and forth on this issue. However, I will heed to your advice about writing to you privately. I always have appreciated your support and assistance and I value your thoughts. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 22:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You left the following message on my talk page:
In your edits to Battle of Siffin, Muawiyah I, Yazid I, etc. please could you add a list of books that you are citing from rather like the Muawiyah I#Sources section that I added in response to a request for clarification that you made on one of the talk pages. You know exactly what the books you are citing are, so this will be very easy for you. The information other readers really need to know are:
Remember we want the information for the edition you are citing.
If you are not actually looking at the book you are citing, but doing second-hand citations, then please make this clear in citations - for if for example you read an article in Mechanics Weekly that is citing Tabari, then you need to say the citation they made, and say cited in Mechanics Weekly together with the name of the article, author of the article, date, etc.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 06:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Muawiyah I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Muawiyah I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 05:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Muawiyah I that didn't seem very civil, but it has not been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have a complaint about other editors, the right place to make it is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, not the article talk page. Thank you. -- Toddy1 ( talk) 05:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no clue as to what alleged "ad hominem" you are referring to. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 05:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Walekum'Salam,
You requested for my mediation, but involving me will be more problamatic for you as I'm known openly for my POV regaridng Islamic articles, I'm a declared Shia and MezzoMezzo & Johnleads are well aware of my POV. Lets see how I can be of any help at the article but please don't rely on me in this case.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 06:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Muawiyah I.
While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.
If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.
If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.
Continued edit warring on Muawiyah I or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Salam! I think the comments you are putting on
Talk:Muawiyah I in your defence will be of more help if you put them on the ANI against you @
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Three solid days of bullying, insults and incivility by User:Flagrantedelicto. And another tip be discreet, gentle and put your point in as less words as possible and in one go and only reply when someone contests your claims or put new claims against you. Good-luck!--
Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider
t
c
s 16:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
W.A.S. Thank you. I shall do so. I really appreciate your assistance. I think you are aware of what is going on with this issue. And thanks for getting CBW to mediate. -- Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 18:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Ironholds (
talk) 18:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Flagrantedelicto ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is no real reason to block me as I have made my contributions to the article. In the week's time, the other WP editors in question who did not make any effort to clean up the state this article was in can delete material which took hours of effort to construct.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
Are you free to work on the Muawiyah I page now. I have been collecting everything together in one place on the temporary page set up by Faiz. It is not finished and still under construction I have left the sections that you usually contribute to for you. It will be changed a lot over the next month or so. -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 11:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I was away from Wikipedia for a while and just realized that Flagrantedelicto is blocked. It may be worth letting Flagrantedelicto come back now and give him a second chance. I know he argues a lot but he also makes a contribution. -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 22:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, Flagrantedelicto! Thank you for
your contributions. I am
Gigs and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on
my talk page. You can also check out
Wikipedia:Questions or type {{
helpme}}
at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Gigs ( talk) 22:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Toddy1. Another editor noticed that you made a change to an article, Yazid I, but you didn't provide a reliable source. The other editor removed it for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think he made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Toddy1. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Yazid I seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. In addition it was uncited 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. -- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Yazid I. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 10:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not think you understand the concept of citations. You should add reliable sources as citations which would allow someone to check that the information you added is valid and so they can find more information. Web sites, (preferably English, but other languages are acceptable), books, newspaper articles and such. You can see how the other citations on that page were added they begin with <ref> and end with </ref>. For example, if you were citing a book the way to do it would <ref>Smith, ''Book title'', 2nd edition, p21-2.</ref> This would show up as something like [3]. Clicking on that would take you to the references section and you would see "Smith, Book title, 2nd edition, p21-2.". You could then add some more details about the book to the list of sources.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 11:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Yazid I shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Favonian ( talk) 16:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
When you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ~~~~.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not put a level 2 heading in front of all your posts - when it is clear that they are just a continuation of previous discussions.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 21:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ali, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. -- SpidErxD ( talk) 13:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
You wrote "With all due respect, please don't place me in the category of the people you have come across here on Wikipedia edit history and its ceaseless POV-pushing vandals." This remark is uncalled for. I have not made any personal attack on you. I treat you with respect. Please do the same for me.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
January 14 is the most widely accepted date for Antony's birth. There is at least one alternative date or time frame, but the way you're inserting the information is confusing: you're placing it before the footnote that verifies January 14. Huzar pp. 10–11 fails verification; these pages don't say anything about the date of Antony's birth. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Mark Antony#Birthday. Cynwolfe ( talk) 02:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Please could we discuss the issue of whether Muawiyah was the first or second Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty at Talk:Muawiyah I#First or second Caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 07:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Try to reveal another editor's real name again, and you'll be blocked so fast your head will spin. This is not a matter for discussion. Email me or the oversight team if you have any questions. Someguy1221 ( talk) 02:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
No I don't really see a need to discuss this. I made an unintentional error. I just didn't like the way you informed me of my accidental, unintentional revelation. Let's drop the matter here and now. My contributions on WP outweigh any undesired conflict. Is that understood (?) Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 02:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I see your point. Such responses from anyone does come across as threatening. I guess I need to not miss taking my High BP prescriptions in a timely manner (seriously, no humour intended). I will ease off. But keep in mind (for the record), it was fellow WP editor Cynwolfe who initiated the personal attacks by calling me "ignorant". This is a matter of open record which anyone can view in the Mark Anthony Talk Page section. And I forgot to add, me being warned that I will be blocked so fast that my head will spin could also be perceived as a threat (especially to someone with High BP medical condition). Keep that in mind, as well. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 03:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate the apology. Thanks. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 00:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I'm required to inform you about this report I made at ANI. Cynwolfe ( talk) 02:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
At Mark Antony you deleted [1] the text " (the calculation is described as including "room for judicious interpretation")" with an edit summary saying "Deleted entry as the recalculated date does have attribution: Classical scholar Max Georg Gerhard Radke; please see Talk Page for explanation." As the text that I added said nothing about attribution but was a comment (from Donna Hurley) on the recalculated date, your edit summary was clearly misleading. Please don't let this happen again. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Flagrantedelicto. I am Diannaa and I am an administrator on this wiki. I have been reviewing your contributions on the Mark Anthony talk page as a result of the report posted at WP:ANI and can see some ongoing problems with the way you are handling the discussion there. Some examples of recent problematic edits, though virtually every edit you made on that page has contained veiled insults of some sort. This violates our policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. These are examples only:
Questioning people's intelligence and motivation is a bad idea, and violates our WP:NPA policy. And asking them about their physical health is not done; it's quite simply none of your business, and is completely irrelevant to a content discussion on this wiki, even if you choose to first reveal information about your own health. Please focus your comments strictly on the content discussion, not on the other editors, their motivations, their health, or their level of intelligence. This is not an exhaustive list. Further violations of our WP:NPA policy could result in your account being blocked from editing. -- Dianna ( talk) 04:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
In your post on Talk:Yazid I at 00:50, 1 May 2013, you said:
This was abusive. Please could you delete these words from your otherwise useful posting.
We could all be abusive to people we disagree with on some points. On the whole life works better if we treat each other politely.
If you believe that there is something wrong with being a citizen of Saudi Arabia, or with being a Salafi, then please be careful not to express these views on Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 07:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I would have to somewhat disagree with your assessment of my response to Sayom. Being described as a shill is not being abusive. First of all, I stated that he sounded like a Saudi-Salafi shill...I didn't openly state that Sayom WAS a Saudi-Salafi shill. Please make note of the syntax and semantics of the English language. Also, the Merriam-Webster/Dictionary.com definition of shill are the following excerpts:
shill noun Definition of SHILL 1 a : one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler) b : one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter
shill [shil] Show IPA Slang. noun 1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc. 2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
Consequentially, the definition of shill is really not abusive...It is certainly not flattering, but it is not abusive or profane. It is more of an unfavourable criticism, if anything else. I also would appreciate it if you would re-evaluate lecturing fellow WP editors such as myself. You have probably never even been to Saudi Arabia. If you had, then you would know that it is Saudi law that a woman cannot even drive a car there by herself and has no individual legislative rights. I have been there a few times. Here is a clip from a WP article itself:
For me to go to any government agency or to the court to buy or sell property, as a woman I am obligated to bring two men as witnesses to testify to my identity, and four male witnesses to testify that the first two are credible witnesses, and actually know me. Where is any woman going to find six men to go with her to the court?! It’s hard for me to get my legal rights...the solution is to use one’s connections, pay a bribe or be sharp-tongued. --Loulwa al-Saidan, real estate investor
Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 10:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not hate Saudi Arabia or its people. I just stated a legislative fact. Saudi Arabia has laws that are not exactly fair to all members of its society. The United Nations and Amnesty International also have problems with inequity in several countries worldwide, one of whom is Saudi Arabia (which is very high up on their list). I was responding to Toddy1, not you. So you have no business responding to my correspondence with Toddy1. I hope you understand this point well. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 21:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
In case you are under the impression that I am making up my citation from a Saudi citizen whose views were cited right here on WP, here is the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 22:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Toddy1, I don't want to get into to an unnecessary session of lecturing or being lectured here. Sayom may respond as there is no way to stop Sayom, obviously. It is Sayom's right of free thought and speech. But it is also my right to react with my opinion regarding Sayom's response. And I repeat to you or Sayom, what I put on YOUR or MY talk page in direct correspondence between us is really none of Sayom's business. That I will stand by so there is no reason to go back and forth on this issue. However, I will heed to your advice about writing to you privately. I always have appreciated your support and assistance and I value your thoughts. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 22:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You left the following message on my talk page:
In your edits to Battle of Siffin, Muawiyah I, Yazid I, etc. please could you add a list of books that you are citing from rather like the Muawiyah I#Sources section that I added in response to a request for clarification that you made on one of the talk pages. You know exactly what the books you are citing are, so this will be very easy for you. The information other readers really need to know are:
Remember we want the information for the edition you are citing.
If you are not actually looking at the book you are citing, but doing second-hand citations, then please make this clear in citations - for if for example you read an article in Mechanics Weekly that is citing Tabari, then you need to say the citation they made, and say cited in Mechanics Weekly together with the name of the article, author of the article, date, etc.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 06:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Muawiyah I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Muawiyah I may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 05:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Muawiyah I that didn't seem very civil, but it has not been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have a complaint about other editors, the right place to make it is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, not the article talk page. Thank you. -- Toddy1 ( talk) 05:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I have no clue as to what alleged "ad hominem" you are referring to. Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 05:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Walekum'Salam,
You requested for my mediation, but involving me will be more problamatic for you as I'm known openly for my POV regaridng Islamic articles, I'm a declared Shia and MezzoMezzo & Johnleads are well aware of my POV. Lets see how I can be of any help at the article but please don't rely on me in this case.-- Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider t c s 06:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Muawiyah I.
While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and edit wars may be slow-moving, spanning weeks or months. Edit wars are not limited to 24 hours.
If you are unclear how to resolve a content dispute, please see dispute resolution. You are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus.
If you feel your edits might qualify as one of the small list of exceptions, please apply them with caution and ensure that anyone looking at your edits will come to the same conclusion. If you are uncertain, seek clarification before continuing. Quite a few editors have found themselves blocked for misunderstanding and/or misapplying these exceptions. Often times, requesting page protection or a sockppuppet investigation is a much better course of action.
Continued edit warring on Muawiyah I or any other article may cause you to be blocked without further notice. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Salam! I think the comments you are putting on
Talk:Muawiyah I in your defence will be of more help if you put them on the ANI against you @
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Three solid days of bullying, insults and incivility by User:Flagrantedelicto. And another tip be discreet, gentle and put your point in as less words as possible and in one go and only reply when someone contests your claims or put new claims against you. Good-luck!--
Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider
t
c
s 16:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
W.A.S. Thank you. I shall do so. I really appreciate your assistance. I think you are aware of what is going on with this issue. And thanks for getting CBW to mediate. -- Flagrantedelicto ( talk) 18:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Ironholds (
talk) 18:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Flagrantedelicto ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is no real reason to block me as I have made my contributions to the article. In the week's time, the other WP editors in question who did not make any effort to clean up the state this article was in can delete material which took hours of effort to construct.
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
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.
Are you free to work on the Muawiyah I page now. I have been collecting everything together in one place on the temporary page set up by Faiz. It is not finished and still under construction I have left the sections that you usually contribute to for you. It will be changed a lot over the next month or so. -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 11:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I was away from Wikipedia for a while and just realized that Flagrantedelicto is blocked. It may be worth letting Flagrantedelicto come back now and give him a second chance. I know he argues a lot but he also makes a contribution. -- Johnleeds1 ( talk) 22:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)