User talk:87.81.147.76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

A cup of warm tea to welcome you!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, although if you wish to acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Muhammad, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Note[edit]

Please be aware of WP:SCRUTINY. --NeilN talk to me 21:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Section 2 of WP:NPA#WHATIS[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Islamic calendar. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SPACKlick (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Islamic calendar. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. NeilN talk to me 15:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Islamic calendar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 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. NeilN talk to me 16:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

ANI notification[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your hounding and refusal to accept consensus. The thread is IP editor 87.81.147.76 refusing to accept consensus.The discussion is about the topic Islamic Calendar. Thank you. SPACKlick (talk) 11:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption of the RFA process[edit]

If you continue to disrupt the RFA process you will be blocked. Zad68 14:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: @Zad68: Can you clarify what you mean by "commenting on the contributor, but not the content"? When people put themselves up for RfA they expect people to delve into their past and make judgment calls depending on what they come up with. I don't see what is wrong with linking to this history. My comments are now in history. If you feel I have abused this process in any way please point to the links you find objectionable and I will review my comments. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: @Zad68:Having printed out and studied the post to the nomination page I can see that something was pasted from Neil's talk which should not have been - the part which begins "You enjoy the company" and ends "should be NailN." The rest appears to be good faith comment. If you think I am mistaken in that view please start a discussion here. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Worm That Turned: @Zad68: If you're checking the diffs on the 14:33, 3 June version of the nomination page, link 31 should be [1]. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:58, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Anno Domini, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 17:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Anno Domini. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 17:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Anno Domini shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 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. NeilN talk to me 17:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anno Domini[edit]

did you see the theory that 1AD was the first normal year of the Julian Calender?Scientus (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a theory that I don't find very convincing. Macrobius' account Julian calendar#Leapyear error rings true. 87.81.147.76 (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hijra (Islam). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. When an editor has already mentioned in the talk-page that Fazlur Rahman mentioned June as Hijra date, how come you are changing it to May by using the same source? -AsceticRosé 16:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

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/Vote (X) for Change, 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. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Contraction (grammar), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Scr★pIronIV 18:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:87.81.147.76&oldid=1140852247"