User talk:Msoamu/Archeive Page2

Thanks, you left me this message. But I don't think I have anything to say, and if I did say anything, based on the diffs at ANI I'm afraid it would proably now be in MezzoMezzo's favour. Although I originally noticed MezzoMezzo's inappropriate used of AfD, the wider picture is that this seems to 70% yourself and 30% MezzoMezzo, primarily because you are not following one of the basic pillars of the encyclopedia; WP:IRS. Those AfDs have gone away, partly because that isn't the purpose of AfD, but the actual articles still fail en.wp sourcing standards. If you want to help these articles, maybe you can add sources in Urdu, Farsi or Arabic (with translation in footnote). Otherwise, good luck. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should really check the ANI thread as soon as you log in. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at WP:ANI, I am formally warning you that any further attacks on people, attempts to ascribe people's editing to their religious convictions, or otherwise talking about editors rather than edits will result in you being blocked. Civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and if you cannot be civil and collaborate with others, then you cannot edit here. I'm not saying that you cannot continue to disagree with MezzoMezzo (or others), but you must do so politely and without attacks. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	AslamoAlikum Barnstar for you for your contributation of resisting some double faced wahabis agendas.which are trying to edit religious articals Wrongly. May ALLAH give you Reward for this. Child Star Grown Up (talk) 14:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have done nothing.An unexpected Barn star from an Unknown.Kindly tell about You.Also learn some guidelines.Msoamu (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This warning is, in my opinion, unwarranted. Msoamu reverted your major edits twice. Yes, it was two different editors that he reverted, but that doesn't rise to the level of edit warring. This process is not improved when any of you pull out warnings and accusations each time the other acts. I've left an extensive suggestion at the article's talk page about how to proceed. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tone things down, then - removing the warning altogether, in light of this, might be a better step on my part. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx Qwyrxian for your mediation.MezzoMezzo,I am now used to your warnnings and complaints.Msoamu (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barelvi. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. Again. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Barelvi. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to make that Article neutral and you have done nothing except to revert my edits.You have not participated in discussion.I have left messages at talk page of the Article.Im removing biased points added by one specific editor.Msoamu (talk) 21:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Barelvi. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{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.  Qwyrxian (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is related to the disputes at the Barelvi article. As you are currently blocked, if you wish to comment on this, I suggest you make your comments here, and an editor will copy them across for you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the thread as soon as you log in next, Msoamu. It's important. MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is somethiing else Sockpuppet_investigations/MsoamuDil e Muslim talk 18:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msoamu, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Alex2564 (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Msoamu. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]