Hello, Inteqaam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
- Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
- Check out some of these pages:
- If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy ( talk) 18:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
- Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
- In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
- Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
- Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing). - In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
- If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
You are free to remove any messages on your talk page, but please follow WP:BRD: bold, revert, discuss. I see you changed Islam in Egypt to the correct number.
Concerning religion in Bangladesh, you claim claim "The gallup survey doesn't state that it says 0% or less than 1% said they were atheist while the 2022 census said 91% of the country is muslim not", which I don't understand. The June 2015 Gallup piece has a table on the bottom. It lists:
- Country: Bangladesh
- A religious person: 93%
- Not a religious person: 5%
- A convinced atheist: 0%
- Do not know / no response: 1%
"while the 2022 census said 91% of the country is muslim not". What census? If there are new sources, update the article. And use the talk page to discuss articles. I'll leave your reverts of my undoing for now, please improve the articles accordingly. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- You reverted the bangladesh edits did you not see what was being reverted the other user removed the 2022 figures and added the 2015 gallup survey results which didn't even mention the figure 86%.
- The Gallup survey said not religious that doesn't mean atheist or irreligious since the gallup survey gave three catergories religious, not religious and atheist so it doesn't make sense to lump not religious and atheism together.
Inteqaam (
talk) 19:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, jumping in the discussion. I reverted your edit because
atheism and
irreligion are two different things. If you still think your version is preferable, let's try to achieve consensus in the talk page and not start an
edit war as you have been doing until now. --
Broc (
talk) 00:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Okay I seen this now
Inteqaam (
talk) 00:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- You say "I see this now" but then you revert my edit? Please be constructive.
Broc (
talk) 00:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted it first before I left a reply here.
Inteqaam (
talk) 00:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Reverted it back. Please drop me a message if you think the issue should be further discussed. -- Broc ( talk) 00:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think a good compromise could be listing data for both people that identify as non-religious and as atheist. I'll leave this up to you. -- Broc ( talk) 00:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted it first before I left a reply here.
Inteqaam (
talk) 00:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- You say "I see this now" but then you revert my edit? Please be constructive.
Broc (
talk) 00:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Okay I seen this now
Inteqaam (
talk) 00:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, jumping in the discussion. I reverted your edit because
atheism and
irreligion are two different things. If you still think your version is preferable, let's try to achieve consensus in the talk page and not start an
edit war as you have been doing until now. --
Broc (
talk) 00:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I already pointed to BRD and the talk page. Stop reverting if you disagree with another editor, start talking. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why not help the situation when the other person is removing the results and messing with the figures instead of this?
Inteqaam (
talk) 09:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am not here to hold your hand. Stop reverting and start talking. It's as easy as that. I've reported you for edit warring, since I do not seem to get through to you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Bangladesh.
What are you doing?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- A discussion was started in the userpage and the talk page which you haven't joined instead of just reverting edits.
Inteqaam (
talk) 11:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- What makes you think you can just revert again? You are edit warring.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Your the only one who is siding with yung yohans edits which are disruptive here as they are using a older source and combining it with a newer source 2022 source and the older source doesn't even mention the religion a discussion was started at the userpage and talk page. Inteqaam ( talk) 11:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- What makes you think you can just revert again? You are edit warring.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Inteqaam reported by User:Soetermans (Result: ). Thank you.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Black Kite (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.
Hello, Inteqaam, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
- Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who said what and when. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
- Check out some of these pages:
- If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out the Teahouse, ask me on my talk page, or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! Rasnaboy ( talk) 18:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Do a search on Google or your preferred search engine for the subject of the Wikipedia article that you want to create a citation for.
- Find a website that supports the claim you are trying to find a citation for.
- In a new tab/window, go to the citation generator, click on the 'An arbitrary website' bubble, and fill out as many fields as you can about the website you just found.
- Click the 'Get reference wiki text' button.
- Highlight, and then copy (Ctrl+C or Apple+C), the resulting text (it will be something like
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>, copy the whole thing). - In the Wikipedia article, after the claim you found a citation for, paste (Ctrl+V or Apple+V) the text you copied.
- If the article does not have a References or Notes section (or the like), add this to the bottom of the page, but above the External Links section and the categories:
==References==
{{Reflist}}
You are free to remove any messages on your talk page, but please follow WP:BRD: bold, revert, discuss. I see you changed Islam in Egypt to the correct number.
Concerning religion in Bangladesh, you claim claim "The gallup survey doesn't state that it says 0% or less than 1% said they were atheist while the 2022 census said 91% of the country is muslim not", which I don't understand. The June 2015 Gallup piece has a table on the bottom. It lists:
- Country: Bangladesh
- A religious person: 93%
- Not a religious person: 5%
- A convinced atheist: 0%
- Do not know / no response: 1%
"while the 2022 census said 91% of the country is muslim not". What census? If there are new sources, update the article. And use the talk page to discuss articles. I'll leave your reverts of my undoing for now, please improve the articles accordingly. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- You reverted the bangladesh edits did you not see what was being reverted the other user removed the 2022 figures and added the 2015 gallup survey results which didn't even mention the figure 86%.
- The Gallup survey said not religious that doesn't mean atheist or irreligious since the gallup survey gave three catergories religious, not religious and atheist so it doesn't make sense to lump not religious and atheism together.
Inteqaam (
talk) 19:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, jumping in the discussion. I reverted your edit because
atheism and
irreligion are two different things. If you still think your version is preferable, let's try to achieve consensus in the talk page and not start an
edit war as you have been doing until now. --
Broc (
talk) 00:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Okay I seen this now
Inteqaam (
talk) 00:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- You say "I see this now" but then you revert my edit? Please be constructive.
Broc (
talk) 00:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted it first before I left a reply here.
Inteqaam (
talk) 00:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Reverted it back. Please drop me a message if you think the issue should be further discussed. -- Broc ( talk) 00:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think a good compromise could be listing data for both people that identify as non-religious and as atheist. I'll leave this up to you. -- Broc ( talk) 00:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted it first before I left a reply here.
Inteqaam (
talk) 00:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- You say "I see this now" but then you revert my edit? Please be constructive.
Broc (
talk) 00:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Okay I seen this now
Inteqaam (
talk) 00:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, jumping in the discussion. I reverted your edit because
atheism and
irreligion are two different things. If you still think your version is preferable, let's try to achieve consensus in the talk page and not start an
edit war as you have been doing until now. --
Broc (
talk) 00:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. 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:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I already pointed to BRD and the talk page. Stop reverting if you disagree with another editor, start talking. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Why not help the situation when the other person is removing the results and messing with the figures instead of this?
Inteqaam (
talk) 09:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am not here to hold your hand. Stop reverting and start talking. It's as easy as that. I've reported you for edit warring, since I do not seem to get through to you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
You may be
blocked from editing without further warning the next time you
disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at
Bangladesh.
What are you doing?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- A discussion was started in the userpage and the talk page which you haven't joined instead of just reverting edits.
Inteqaam (
talk) 11:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- What makes you think you can just revert again? You are edit warring.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Your the only one who is siding with yung yohans edits which are disruptive here as they are using a older source and combining it with a newer source 2022 source and the older source doesn't even mention the religion a discussion was started at the userpage and talk page. Inteqaam ( talk) 11:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- What makes you think you can just revert again? You are edit warring.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Inteqaam reported by User:Soetermans (Result: ). Thank you.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Black Kite (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the
Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.