|
Hi Mcphurphy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sexual slavery in Islam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mauritanian, Palestinian and Mezre ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be 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. 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:
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. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (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:Mcphurphy reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: ). Thank you. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 04:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mcphurphy. You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You literally just got warned for not edit warring less than 24 hours ago. yet you're at it again in Concubinage in Islam. VR talk 08:28, 21 May 2020 (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. Thank you. VR talk 10:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
As I pointed out both you and a wikiquote account დამოკიდებუილება2 use the exact same sources and exact same page numbers. I count more than 40 such instances - too many to be a coincidence. In many cases both of you make the exact same spelling mistakes. You have since said that დამოკიდებუილება2 was copying you. (There are cases where დამოკიდებუილება2 uses the same source as you but couldn't have possibly copied you, but you seem chalk that up to coincidence.) Yet, it seems that დამოკიდებუილება2's confirmed sockmaster, ΞΔΞ, used the exact same sources as you before you inserted them into Concubinage in Islam:
Did you also copy the wikiquote accounts? VR talk 02:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Please mind WP:CANVASSING on Rape in Islamic law. There are many editors who have edited the page, yet you sending messages only to those whose viewpoints are known to align with yours. For example, this was sent to someone who said "the article goes to great lengths to 'not' spell out what Islamic Law thinks about the rape of slaves". Then this comment sent to someone who said "I think this article may be missing what Islamic laws say regarding the rape of unbelievers." This is WP:VOTESTACKING. VR talk 04:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not a fond of what you did here. The IP's comments came first and were in response to mine as indicated by the indentation. You changed their order and indentation, which effectively makes them look like in response to yours. Please don't edit other people's comments. If you want to interject, you can increase the indentation of your own comments, but don't change the indentation of someone else's. VR talk 15:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a very obvious violation of WP:CANVASSING. You know the views of the user so this is WP:VOTESTACKING. And your message is biased, so this is also Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning. You were warned about canvassing earlier, yet you have persisted, and I feel this must now be taken to admins. VR talk 15:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Mcphurphy, it comes across as a bit suspect, even though it's just one editor. Maybe be extra careful from now on when it comes to invitations. El_C 17:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I warned you before when you changed indents on someone else's comments to make it seem like they were responding to a different comment. I'm warning you again, do NOT edit my comments like you did here. VR talk 13:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello and greetings,
I have initiated a Draft:Comparison of rights and limitations of Muslim wives, female slaves and concubines and requesting you to have a look at the draft.
Where in which format on which wiki project the draft content can be used that call can be taken later.
If draft topic interests you then please do support in expansion and update of the Draft:Comparison of rights and limitations of Muslim wives, female slaves and concubines .
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 03:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I made some edits to the article titled Sexual slavery in Islam. I think it needs to be approved by an "Extended confirmed user", so please approve it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.128.37 ( talk) 06:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Sexual slavery in Islam 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.
Your larger reverts both individually break
WP:3RR - you are reverting three separate groups of edits by myself, as well as at least one edit by Vice Regent in each case - this makes each of the large reverts in fact four reverts in one, so you have now broken
WP:3RR rule twice. Further efforts to revert will be taken in bad faith.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:10, 29 October 2021 (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:Mcphurphy reported by User:Iskandar323 (Result: ). Thank you. Iskandar323 ( talk) 13:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. You are advised to wait for consensus before making any further reverts on this topic. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I ran out of edit comment space, but on thos equotations, without further sourcing making that link, you are making an inference - these quotes are about separating captives - they mention nothing about the use of the slaves, which leaves the quotes ultimately devoid of meaning in an article specifically about certain types of slavery - these quotes would be appropriate in History of slavery in the Muslim world, but the link you make to use for sex is simply not there in the quotations, so it is WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
You have made 3 reverts in just under 2 hours at Sexual slavery in Islam. And you were just blocked for edit warring a few days ago. If you continue, I will report you again. VR talk 22:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
This looks like blatant canvassing. Your pings are selective and don't even come close to notifying all editors on that page. You pinged those who share your POV but haven't edited that page for more than a year. Yet you didn't ping many users who more recently commented on that page but have a viewpoint contrary to yours. Admin El_C previously warned you about canvassing. VR talk 00:18, 13 November 2021 (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. Thank you. VR talk 01:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 17:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
|
Hi Mcphurphy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sexual slavery in Islam, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mauritanian, Palestinian and Mezre ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 15:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be 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. 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:
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. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 04:39, 20 May 2020 (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:Mcphurphy reported by User:SharabSalam (Result: ). Thank you. SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 04:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mcphurphy. You've been warned for edit warring per a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the article talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 02:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You literally just got warned for not edit warring less than 24 hours ago. yet you're at it again in Concubinage in Islam. VR talk 08:28, 21 May 2020 (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. Thank you. VR talk 10:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
As I pointed out both you and a wikiquote account დამოკიდებუილება2 use the exact same sources and exact same page numbers. I count more than 40 such instances - too many to be a coincidence. In many cases both of you make the exact same spelling mistakes. You have since said that დამოკიდებუილება2 was copying you. (There are cases where დამოკიდებუილება2 uses the same source as you but couldn't have possibly copied you, but you seem chalk that up to coincidence.) Yet, it seems that დამოკიდებუილება2's confirmed sockmaster, ΞΔΞ, used the exact same sources as you before you inserted them into Concubinage in Islam:
Did you also copy the wikiquote accounts? VR talk 02:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Please mind WP:CANVASSING on Rape in Islamic law. There are many editors who have edited the page, yet you sending messages only to those whose viewpoints are known to align with yours. For example, this was sent to someone who said "the article goes to great lengths to 'not' spell out what Islamic Law thinks about the rape of slaves". Then this comment sent to someone who said "I think this article may be missing what Islamic laws say regarding the rape of unbelievers." This is WP:VOTESTACKING. VR talk 04:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not a fond of what you did here. The IP's comments came first and were in response to mine as indicated by the indentation. You changed their order and indentation, which effectively makes them look like in response to yours. Please don't edit other people's comments. If you want to interject, you can increase the indentation of your own comments, but don't change the indentation of someone else's. VR talk 15:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
This is a very obvious violation of WP:CANVASSING. You know the views of the user so this is WP:VOTESTACKING. And your message is biased, so this is also Wikipedia:Canvassing#Campaigning. You were warned about canvassing earlier, yet you have persisted, and I feel this must now be taken to admins. VR talk 15:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Mcphurphy, it comes across as a bit suspect, even though it's just one editor. Maybe be extra careful from now on when it comes to invitations. El_C 17:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I warned you before when you changed indents on someone else's comments to make it seem like they were responding to a different comment. I'm warning you again, do NOT edit my comments like you did here. VR talk 13:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Hello and greetings,
I have initiated a Draft:Comparison of rights and limitations of Muslim wives, female slaves and concubines and requesting you to have a look at the draft.
Where in which format on which wiki project the draft content can be used that call can be taken later.
If draft topic interests you then please do support in expansion and update of the Draft:Comparison of rights and limitations of Muslim wives, female slaves and concubines .
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku ( talk) 03:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I made some edits to the article titled Sexual slavery in Islam. I think it needs to be approved by an "Extended confirmed user", so please approve it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.99.128.37 ( talk) 06:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Sexual slavery in Islam 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.
Your larger reverts both individually break
WP:3RR - you are reverting three separate groups of edits by myself, as well as at least one edit by Vice Regent in each case - this makes each of the large reverts in fact four reverts in one, so you have now broken
WP:3RR rule twice. Further efforts to revert will be taken in bad faith.
Iskandar323 (
talk) 05:10, 29 October 2021 (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:Mcphurphy reported by User:Iskandar323 (Result: ). Thank you. Iskandar323 ( talk) 13:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. You are advised to wait for consensus before making any further reverts on this topic. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I ran out of edit comment space, but on thos equotations, without further sourcing making that link, you are making an inference - these quotes are about separating captives - they mention nothing about the use of the slaves, which leaves the quotes ultimately devoid of meaning in an article specifically about certain types of slavery - these quotes would be appropriate in History of slavery in the Muslim world, but the link you make to use for sex is simply not there in the quotations, so it is WP:SYNTH. Iskandar323 ( talk) 20:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
You have made 3 reverts in just under 2 hours at Sexual slavery in Islam. And you were just blocked for edit warring a few days ago. If you continue, I will report you again. VR talk 22:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
This looks like blatant canvassing. Your pings are selective and don't even come close to notifying all editors on that page. You pinged those who share your POV but haven't edited that page for more than a year. Yet you didn't ping many users who more recently commented on that page but have a viewpoint contrary to yours. Admin El_C previously warned you about canvassing. VR talk 00:18, 13 November 2021 (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. Thank you. VR talk 01:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk) 17:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)