CircassianBilyal

Welcome!

Hi CircassianBilyal! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sexual slavery in Islam; 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 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. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

So are you Mcphurphy.VR _talk 14:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Good faith

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Sexual slavery in Islam. Thank you. Mcphurphy (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

@Mcphurphy: where exactly did CircassianBilyal not assume good faith? Please provide a link to the diff.VR _talk 14:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Please also discuss

Hey, I saw your edits on Concubinage in Islam. Thank you for your attention on that article. Please also join the discussion at Talk:Concubinage in Islam.VR _talk 14:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverts

Hello CircassianBilyal. You should not keep on reverting to contentious new versions, and you must let the WP:STATUSQUO remain as per WP:NOCON until editors resolve their disputes on the talkpage. Mcphurphy (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Partial block from Concubinage in Islam

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of one week for edit warring absent an attempt to discuss the dispute on the article talk page in weeks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 13:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Religion in Algeria, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. drt1245 (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The source of the arabrometer poll was not about it it religion church yourself rather about people who identify as religious or less religious and the pew one from Algeria does not state atheism either this is a direct misleadment CircassianBilyal (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Please explain why you have removed the data from Religion in Morocco. It seems well cited, according the data sourced from Arab barometer, BBC, and Aujourdhui. drt1245 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

The bbc poll is talking about less religious not irreligious and atheism CircassianBilyal (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CircassianBilyal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was confused he said take it to your talk page which I did but I didn’t know he was referring to the article talk page he keeps reverting edits which is wrong as the poll was about less religious in the Arab world not about irreligion. Here is the poll www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-middle-east-48703377 in question

Decline reason:

You are blocked for violating WP:EW but haven't addressed this in your unblock request. Yamla (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2020 (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.

I see sorry I don’t get what edit warring means does it mean I make bad edits because I don’t I even talk it out on the talk page? CircassianBilyal (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I see sorry I don’t get what edit warring means — read WP:EW. Not to be unkind, but competence is required to edit here. El_C 21:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I read it I understand now I should notify users on there talk page the article page before getting rid of there edits. CircassianBilyal (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Can I be unblock and report that Ip he has two other accounts who put the same poll information in the articles CircassianBilyal (talk) 22:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

There needs to be a substantive unblock request (using the unblock template) for that to happen. Read WP:GAB if you want a decent chance at succeeding in this. El_C 22:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you CircassianBilyal (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CircassianBilyal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand what I did now I shouldn’t of done edit warring I didn’t understand at first now I do. I will take this issue to the talk page on the article then revert edits I wrongly went to the user talk page and done edit revert was wrong of me to do.

Decline reason:

"I will take this issue to the talk page on the article then revert edits" is not how it works. Discussion does not give you a license to revert edits. Please read about consensus. I'm having difficulty seeing how you can be unblocked without agreeing to some sort of restriction on reverting edits like 1RR, but that will be up to the next reviewer. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2020 (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.

I seek consensus but when the user doesn't care and ignore it what should i do then? So after consensus I can revert Okay I get and can I get admin involved here because the bbc poll was about how religious and less religious arab world has got not about irreligion which i google and means atheism. circassianbilyal (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2020

Admins do not resolve content disputes. If you have a content dispute and cannot resolve it through talk page discussion, you then move to dispute resolution procedures. Please understand that Wikipedia editors are a wide variety of people, all from different backgrounds with different religious and social views. We all need to be able to get along with each other to accomplish anything here. 331dot (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand and yes I am not racist or disrespectful to other faith people or those who atheist CircassianBilyal (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

General practice is to place new posts at the bottom of the page, for proper flow. Another administrator will see and respond to your request. 331dot (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CircassianBilyal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand I need to stop edit warring as i have to go to talk page then create a consensus then revert changes when consensus reached

Decline reason:

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arsi786. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2020 (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.

• CircassianBilyal, it was suggested by 331dot that you agree to some sort of an editing restriction like 1RR before you're unblocked. 1RR generally means no more than 1 revert a day on an article. It would allow you to discuss as much as possible and put no restrictions on making edits that are not reverts. I strongly advise you agree to that in your unblock request and then abide by it once you're unblocked.VR _talk 13:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
• It should be noted that this account is a sock of User:Arsi786. 2600:1014:B042:2EEB:5863:F6:A860:6CF7 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)