Badrelmers
 | This user is a Muslim. |
Welcome
editWelcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:
- Policy on neutral point of view
- Guideline on spam
- Guideline on external links
- Guideline on conflict of interest
If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and how to develop articles
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- Article wizard for creating new articles
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Racconish Tk 17:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
June 2017
edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Adam. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Adam 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 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 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. Theroadislong (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adam. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- 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; 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. JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Myth
editDid you read this? Doug Weller talk 05:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes and I agree that it is not a clear word today, and it loses there meaning of truth in a secular wiki :) Badrelmers (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
June 2017
edit You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Adam. Theroadislong (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Do not vandalize please, and explain why you want to force you christian point of view of Adam instead of the truth. If you are sure that Adam is like what Michelangelo drawn then gave your source instead of vandalizing without even explain why you vandalize Badrelmers (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
edit
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:Badrelmers reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: ). Thank you. Doug Weller talk 07:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
June 2017
edit
Hello, I'm Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Adam, 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. — fortunavelut luna 08:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks! yes you made a mistake when you deleted everything, you have to discuss point by point and I will be happy to answer you, you have to tell me witch part you find it need a source. thanks Badrelmers (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Adam
editHello Badrelmers. Instead of telling other editors that they were mistaken in reverting your changes and that they should discuss each point before reverting, it may be best to open a public discussion at Talk:Adam and to discuss the changes you would like to make and justify them. I also recommend making few changes at a time rather than many changes at once, which are more likely to completely be reverted together. Please see WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD and WP:ONUS for more information. I currently see no ongoing discussion on that talk page, despite your multiple unsuccessful attempts to edit the article. Thank you, —PaleoNeonate - 09:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, It is not me who added all that information, me I added small things the other part there was a lot of users who contributed and in one day some one come and delete this big part then I recover it. and this is very clear if you follow the the edit changes. Badrelmers (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
June 2017
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)unblock request
edit
Badrelmers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I really can't understand why you treat my editions as vandalism, I was adding information with official sources during all the day and there was some users who were against some changes then I left what it need to be left, and I added new information leaving the war editing that it was beginning, then an editor called PiCo come and removed a big part of the article 3 times successively: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam&diff=788230769&oldid=788228504 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam&diff=788230924&oldid=788230769 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam&diff=788231210&oldid=788230924 this parts deleted by this editor "PiCo" was not created by me it was there a long time before I begin editing this article, so I thought it was a vandalism act and I did undo, then my undo was not accepted and the new editors thought that I was insisting in adding all this information in one time, I was defending Wikipedia from a vandalism act, if I was mistaken please forgave me because I did not know that I will get permanently blocked because of that. Thank you for your time. Badrelmers (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your edits appear to be forcing young-earth creationism on Wikipedia. For example, here, you claim, "In the Judaism the creation of Adam took place 3760 years BC". You didn't bother sourcing that, and it's far from a universally-accepted date. Furthermore, you engaged in edit-warring to enforce your changes. Both indicate it would be detrimental to Wikipedia to unblock you. Yamla (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
unblock request
edit Badrelmers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, I did an unblock request and it was declined by a misunderstood because the reviewer thought I m the responsible of forcing young-earth creationism on Wikipedia. the reviewer of my request said :
you claim, "In the Judaism the creation of Adam took place 3760 years BC". You didn't bother sourcing that, and it's far from a universally-accepted date.
My answer:
I did not add this information, I found it already in the infobox in the article "Adam", and as you can see it is there from 2016:
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q70899&diff=409810045&oldid=409809912
then yesterday, I added the "unkowen" label to the date case in wikidata as you can see here:
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q70899&diff=509585679&oldid=509584682
then I discovered that the date disappeared from the infobox of Adam article in wikipedia, then I decided to include a paragraph with the Jewish date already published in wikidata.
I m not forcing young-earth creationism it was already there for 1 year. Thanks.
Badrelmers (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You're wikilawyering. Using Wikidata as a source to add content to the article? Wikidata also gives the image; you clearly weren't deferential to Wikidata there. This also does not address your blatant edit-warring. Huon (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
unblock request
edit Badrelmers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi, An Admin reported me here [1] but I think he/she did not follow/understand what happened and why I did this reverts, please find bellow the details: The first revert reported was a revert [2] to a user called "PICo", "PICo" removed 3 times successively valuable information, this information was there a long time before me, so I decided it is a possible vandalism then I revert it innocently. This is some of the changes he did [3]: he changed this : Adam ... is a figure from the Ginza Rabba, the Book of Genesis and the New Testament, the deuterocanonical books, the Quran and the Hadith, the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Iqan. According to the creation myth[1] of the Abrahamic religions, he was the first human. to this: Adam ... according to the Book of Genesis, was the first man. and this is clearly not a neutral point of view, because Adam is the father of monotheists then we cannot include only Jewish/Christian point of view, so I reverted what this user did (PICo), here is where the problems start. As you see I had no intention to enter in an edit war because I believe that discussion can solve any problem between two persons that search the truth truly, but unfortunately this is my first time with the 3 reverts policy, in a situation where I think I had a reason to do so, I had a good reason to do it and I thought I'm defending Wikipedia from vandalism and Sectarianism as I read in the Wikipedia:Edit warring exemptions: The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: 4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language. Nobody opened a discussion about this changes (PICo edits), they only revert everything without even know what happen or how it happened, and they did not answer me as you can see here when I wrote to the first one who reverted my first revert, I told him: ...you have to discuss point by point and I will be happy to answer you, you have to tell me witch part you find it need a source. thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi&diff=prev&oldid=788238674 so I reverted a 2nd time hoping she will tell me witch part need a source, but she did not answer me. Then 2 min after my 2nd revert a new editor come and revert the same thing (PICo edits), so I reverted again (and I explained why in the "Edit summary"), then he reverted again without explaining for the second time and they blocked me definitely because of this! and as you can see in my past edits in the Adam article history I did a lot of changes with a lot of users and I attempted to avoid to revert there changes and cooperate in a healthy environment and when an edit war was beginning I leave it and I go to another thing, but "PICo" edits was really catastrophic. I was explaining the changes that I did, using the "Edit summary", and I thought it is sufficient, but I just discovered how to do it Template:Disputed inline using the talk page and this tag [disputed ], this is my mistake, but really nobody do this, every one come and change as he like without even explain the reasons in the "Edit summary" neither in the discussion page, so I was not sure how this work and I was experimenting as this is the first time it happens to me. I can gave more details but this will be very long, if you need more information please tell me. and lastly, I wish to have 24h block and not a permanent block, because it is my first time with the 3RR and edit war, as stated here Wikipedia:Edit warring Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; my mistake was to not understand the 3RR, I thought I can not revert only the same edit 3 times, but I just learned that the max is 3 reverts anywhere in the article during 24 h. So I believe I did break the rules but this is my first time, and the first time is a 24h block only, because of that I think the block is no longer needed. Thank you very much Badrelmers (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
(1) The more you write here, the more apparent it becomes that you just do not understand what you have been told by other editors. (2) It is also clear that you do not see what has been wrong with your editing, and that you intend to continue to edit in the same way. (3) It is clear that you are here to promote your point of view. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
yaur
edit Badrelmers (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi I wish to have 24h block and not a permanent block, because it is my first time, as stated here Wikipedia:Edit warring Administrators decide whether to issue a warning or block; these are intended to prevent, deter and encourage change in disruptive behavior, not to punish it. Where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is common for a first offense; my mistake was to not understand how this work, I thought before this problem that I can not revert only the same edit 3 times, but I just learned that the max is 3 reverts anywhere in the article during 24 h (and it is the max limit and not a right to use). The block is no longer needed because I learned from my first error. thanks Badrelmers (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Based on your comments in the previous unblock requests, you clearly have not learned from your first error. I am not convinced you won't start the same edit pattern again. We are not FORCED to use the 24 hour standard in cases where the abuse is blatant as it was here. I am also removing talk page access from your page as your frequent unblock requests have gotten nowhere. only (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
July 2017
edit
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.