Welcome : ) Lkmen ( talk) 04:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It is about Biblical and Scientific Evidences 4 Islam : )
It is about Quran: Math testify: Qur'an is the word of God, word by word.
Probably, Yellowstone Lake was mentioned in Qur'an 18:86. In Islam, there was, before Mohammad long time ago, a great leader or prophet was named Thoo al Qarnain who went to the far west until he reached a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and then he was able to see the sunset on this lake or spring of water, which means that this lake or spring of water is large enough to see the sunset on it, like what you see when you watch the sunset on a sea. Because nobody can see the sunset on a small lake. He found a people near it, then Allah (God) had commanded him to rule these people by the law of Allah (God) according to the Qur'an. So, probably, these people were the ancient predecessors of the Native Americans, who were living near Yellowstone lake for about 11,000 years. All these info were based on Qur'an 18:86: "Until, when he reached the far west he saw the sunset on a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and he found near it a people". I also support this by how the lake looks like from the sky. The lake from air looks like a standing strong man, wearing two horns on his head, pointing his shield towards the west or the sunset. BTW, his name Thoo al Qarnain means in Arabic (the man of two horns). See Yellowstone lake on wikipedia. See also the black clay, and the sunset on that lake in the second 44 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAY5vpcap2Q
Please don't add sections that are unsupported by reliable sources. Mikenorton ( talk) 14:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome...
Hello, Lkmen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Mike Cline (
talk)
14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that any lengthy content about religion (any religion) would be appropriate for an article like Yellowstone. However, if that is a topic you'd like to work on, I would suggest drafting an article in your user space, something like Religions and Yellowstone and flesh it out with proper sourcing, etc. Working on draft articles in your user space (especially if they are likely to be contentious) is a far more productive way to work in WP. There are many editors who will help you become a productive Wikipedian if you want to be. I know from experience that trying to force contentious content into articles, especially one as popular and visible as Yellowstone is unlikely to do anything but alienate the editing community against you--something I sincerely hope you want to avoid. The community is here to help you. Let me know if I can help in anyway. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate
your contributions, including your edits to
Yellowstone National Park, but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Mikenorton (
talk)
08:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to
Yellowstone National Park. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Mikenorton (
talk)
06:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, as you did at
Yellowstone National Park, you may be
blocked from editing.
Mikenorton (
talk)
08:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Your persistent addition of the same controversial Islamic content to the Yellowstone article is not constructive. At least two editors do not believe the content should be added to the article and have graciously suggested alternatives to you for exploring ways for the community to review and decide if the content is appropriate for the Yellowstone article. Your persistence in re-adding the deleted content will not change the controversial nature of the content and it will be removed until such time that the wider community accepts it. Please be mindful that there are consequences for persistent edit waring, consequences I trust you don't want to endure. Please take advantage of previous suggestions and either discuss the controversial content on the article's talk page or draft an article in your user space before adding the content to the article again. Thanks -- Mike Cline ( talk) 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Yellowstone National Park. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 08:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Qur'an.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.
Ian.thomson (
talk)
12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you insert a
spam link, as you did at
Islam, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites
blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all
Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. You've been warned about pushing original research and edit warring as well. Wikipedia is not here to push any point of view. We are not your own personal blog.
Ian.thomson (
talk)
13:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Lkmen reported by User:Suffusion of Yellow (Result: 48h). EdJohnston ( talk) 13:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Lkmen, even though you are blocked, you might want to follow the discussion that will occur here on the material you would like to add to the Yellowstone and Yellowstone Lake articles. Allowing a wider audience to evaluate contraversial content before adding it to an article is a far better approach than the path you've chosen so far. Please allow the community to access the content in light of OR, RS and NPOV for a few days. There are a great many experienced and wise editors that monitor that noticeboard. Once your block has expired, please feel free to participate in the discussion. Sincerely -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Qur'an.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. External links pushing a specific religious viewpoint are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles - especially not personal YouTube channels --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
19:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you insert a
spam link, as you did at
Islam, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites
blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all
Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. You have been warned before about adding POV-pushing links to articles - if you continue, you will get another block --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
19:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, And I've reverted your continued disruption of
Yellowstone Lake and
Yellowstone National Park. You're lucky I didn't see these before I issued the warning above, otherwise you would now be blocked again. But be warned - do it again and another block will be inevitable --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
19:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Brother, I'm a Muslim too. You can contact me if you're trying to push a Muslim opinion without sources, however, insisting on unreliable sources and illogical edits are not acceptable. Please, save everyone the time by only editing with academic standards. This is not an Islamic book, but an encyclopedia that is based on logic and majority point of views. STOP your editing war, if you're willing to stay on Wikipedia, respectfully. Bless you :) AdvertAdam ( talk) 20:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. If you believe there is material that is irrelevant in an article, please don't just remove it as you did with Qur'an and science, but explain why it is irrelevant on the Talk page and get a consensus first - just saying it is irrelevant in the edit summary is not sufficient, especially if it is likely to be controversial -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Acroterion
(talk)
18:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome : ) Lkmen ( talk) 04:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
It is about Biblical and Scientific Evidences 4 Islam : )
It is about Quran: Math testify: Qur'an is the word of God, word by word.
Probably, Yellowstone Lake was mentioned in Qur'an 18:86. In Islam, there was, before Mohammad long time ago, a great leader or prophet was named Thoo al Qarnain who went to the far west until he reached a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and then he was able to see the sunset on this lake or spring of water, which means that this lake or spring of water is large enough to see the sunset on it, like what you see when you watch the sunset on a sea. Because nobody can see the sunset on a small lake. He found a people near it, then Allah (God) had commanded him to rule these people by the law of Allah (God) according to the Qur'an. So, probably, these people were the ancient predecessors of the Native Americans, who were living near Yellowstone lake for about 11,000 years. All these info were based on Qur'an 18:86: "Until, when he reached the far west he saw the sunset on a hot spring of water which has a black clay, and he found near it a people". I also support this by how the lake looks like from the sky. The lake from air looks like a standing strong man, wearing two horns on his head, pointing his shield towards the west or the sunset. BTW, his name Thoo al Qarnain means in Arabic (the man of two horns). See Yellowstone lake on wikipedia. See also the black clay, and the sunset on that lake in the second 44 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAY5vpcap2Q
Please don't add sections that are unsupported by reliable sources. Mikenorton ( talk) 14:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome...
Hello, Lkmen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!
Mike Cline (
talk)
14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that any lengthy content about religion (any religion) would be appropriate for an article like Yellowstone. However, if that is a topic you'd like to work on, I would suggest drafting an article in your user space, something like Religions and Yellowstone and flesh it out with proper sourcing, etc. Working on draft articles in your user space (especially if they are likely to be contentious) is a far more productive way to work in WP. There are many editors who will help you become a productive Wikipedian if you want to be. I know from experience that trying to force contentious content into articles, especially one as popular and visible as Yellowstone is unlikely to do anything but alienate the editing community against you--something I sincerely hope you want to avoid. The community is here to help you. Let me know if I can help in anyway. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate
your contributions, including your edits to
Yellowstone National Park, but we cannot accept
original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Mikenorton (
talk)
08:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add
original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to
Yellowstone National Park. Please cite a
reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.
Mikenorton (
talk)
06:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's
no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or
synthesis into articles, as you did at
Yellowstone National Park, you may be
blocked from editing.
Mikenorton (
talk)
08:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Your persistent addition of the same controversial Islamic content to the Yellowstone article is not constructive. At least two editors do not believe the content should be added to the article and have graciously suggested alternatives to you for exploring ways for the community to review and decide if the content is appropriate for the Yellowstone article. Your persistence in re-adding the deleted content will not change the controversial nature of the content and it will be removed until such time that the wider community accepts it. Please be mindful that there are consequences for persistent edit waring, consequences I trust you don't want to endure. Please take advantage of previous suggestions and either discuss the controversial content on the article's talk page or draft an article in your user space before adding the content to the article again. Thanks -- Mike Cline ( talk) 12:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Yellowstone National Park. Users are expected to
collaborate with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
In particular, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 08:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Qur'an.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.
Ian.thomson (
talk)
12:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you insert a
spam link, as you did at
Islam, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites
blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all
Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. You've been warned about pushing original research and edit warring as well. Wikipedia is not here to push any point of view. We are not your own personal blog.
Ian.thomson (
talk)
13:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Lkmen reported by User:Suffusion of Yellow (Result: 48h). EdJohnston ( talk) 13:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Lkmen, even though you are blocked, you might want to follow the discussion that will occur here on the material you would like to add to the Yellowstone and Yellowstone Lake articles. Allowing a wider audience to evaluate contraversial content before adding it to an article is a far better approach than the path you've chosen so far. Please allow the community to access the content in light of OR, RS and NPOV for a few days. There are a great many experienced and wise editors that monitor that noticeboard. Once your block has expired, please feel free to participate in the discussion. Sincerely -- Mike Cline ( talk) 14:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Qur'an.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See
the external links guideline and
spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the
nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. External links pushing a specific religious viewpoint are not appropriate for Wikipedia articles - especially not personal YouTube channels --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
19:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
This is your last warning; the next time you insert a
spam link, as you did at
Islam, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites
blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all
Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. You have been warned before about adding POV-pushing links to articles - if you continue, you will get another block --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
19:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, And I've reverted your continued disruption of
Yellowstone Lake and
Yellowstone National Park. You're lucky I didn't see these before I issued the warning above, otherwise you would now be blocked again. But be warned - do it again and another block will be inevitable --
Boing! said Zebedee (
talk)
19:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Brother, I'm a Muslim too. You can contact me if you're trying to push a Muslim opinion without sources, however, insisting on unreliable sources and illogical edits are not acceptable. Please, save everyone the time by only editing with academic standards. This is not an Islamic book, but an encyclopedia that is based on logic and majority point of views. STOP your editing war, if you're willing to stay on Wikipedia, respectfully. Bless you :) AdvertAdam ( talk) 20:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. If you believe there is material that is irrelevant in an article, please don't just remove it as you did with Qur'an and science, but explain why it is irrelevant on the Talk page and get a consensus first - just saying it is irrelevant in the edit summary is not sufficient, especially if it is likely to be controversial -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 21:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Acroterion
(talk)
18:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
--The Olive Branch 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)