User talk:Septate/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Septate, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Septate!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome!

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Can you please tell me that can I create an article using mobile.Septate (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pinacoderm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ostia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC) Ostia

March 2014

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walid562. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hinduism by country may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

highly observed among [[Hindu]]s, specially among those residing in [[India]] and [[Nepal]].<ref>[https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/np.html#People The World Factbook</

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Voltaire. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Septate. You have new messages at Ian.thomson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regarding your edits to Islam

Wikipedia is neutral and not censored. Wikipedia does not favor any particular religion's or irreligion's beliefs over others, no matter how popular or strongly held they may be: Origin of Life redirects to Abiogenesis instead of Young earth creationism, articles on various religions do not redirect to the article on superstition, and all site articles do not redirect to the article on God. The picture removed was originally made by a Muslim, because it is only certain sects within Islam that endorse iconoclasm at all times (as demonstrated by a number of pieces of Islamic art depicting different persons). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors on the article on Islam. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page. You can see that there is a discussion at Talk:Islam#Picture censorship that we would like you to contribute to.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Criticism of Islam, you can get blocked from editing without further notice. Foggas (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Septate's edit was not vandalism, and it is uncivil to describe it as such.

What we have is a content dispute. Please could one of you create a new section in the article talk page and discuss it. Septate has made important points in his/her edit summaries. In the talk page, these points could be expanded on, and Foggas could explain why he/she thinks these points are not relevant (or whatever Foggas's disagreement is).--Toddy1 (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Foggas that it IS in-fact vandalism. It seems as the two users both know each other - whether that's in professionalism capacity or as a friend that is still yet to be known - as I have (very) recently found. Thus it makes sense as to why user Toddy1 is trying to 'down-play' what user Septate is doing. --George Howarth (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please consider this as a warning. You are engaged in an edit war over the article on Criticism of Islam. 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. Below is a list of the four/five reverts that each of you have made.

1. Septate 11:00, 23 March 2014
1. Froggas 11:36, 23 March 2014
2. Septate 16:40, 25 March 2014
2. Froggas 17:18, 25 March 2014
3. Septate 14:11, 26 March 2014
3. Froggas 18:40, 26 March 2014
4. Septate 15:52, 28 March 2014
4. Froggas 05:27, 29 March 2014
5. Septate 16:13, 29 March 2014

Wikipedia has a policy on edit warring. Please use the section at Talk:Criticism of Islam#Edits by Froggas to discuss this issue, 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 continue to engage in this edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

George Howarth is right. Just check what you have left for 'explanation' at Talk:Criticism of Islam#Edits by Froggas, it is actually irrelevant, you make your point about those who are uninvolved(hindu immigrants, christian immigrants, 150 million citizens) than talking about those who are actually involved in the subject. You've removed whole Russia's reference, yet you haven't even spout a single word about that when you wrote a new section. Foggas (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. DeCausa (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Indonesia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chinese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Your recent editing history at Islam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You should know better by now. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No, its not edit warring at all. I have created the section on talk page and asked the user to describe his concerns.Septate (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Put it this way, if someone re-adds the info and you remove it again then I will report you for WP:3RR and you will likely be blocked again. Opening a discussion does not mean you can repeat your edit again and again. Wait for others to join the discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Septate, I would really like a straight answer to this: have you read WP:BRD, WP:EW and WP:CONSENSUS? DeCausa (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That's what I was doing Consensus. Just do an internet search and you will find out that most Islamic countries don't even consider ahmadis Muslim officially.Septate (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you obviously haven't read WP:CONSENSUS. It deals with decision making on Wikipedia, not how things are perceived in the outside world. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Except Septate, you've just posted on my talk page that "You were right that I have removed the info without concensus". It's virtually impossible to assume good faith with you. DeCausa (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but what I wrote must have been unclear. What I hoped you would do would be to propose some changes to the article in the talk page. If you look at Talk:Arseniy Yatsenyuk#Proposed versions for ethnicity April 2014 you will see an example of what I meant.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tripura Rahasya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Referring to Voltaire, Folk religion, Entering Heaven alive and Nontrinitarianism. Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, and add original research, you may be blocked from editing. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Changing "Hinduism" to "Vedism", and "Hindus" to "Indians" is certainly WP:OR, no matter what are the basis of your thinking. But we go by the reliable source that has been added on the section. We don't make any claims or sentences that are against the source that has been provided, it is essentially considered as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH when you do. Furthermore it is also considered as bad faith, and dishonesty.

You are removing "Hinduism" from Folk religion, even though a source has been provided. If you look, there are thousands of more, you can actually expand the article. If you don't want to, it is fine, but stop removing the sourced content. If Jainism can be called as Folk Religion, you can write about it.

Entering Heaven alive has been sourced with reliable sources. Every source can be confirmed, all you have to do is copy those book titles and search them on http://books.google.com . I think I can find some for you, The History of Medieval Vaishnavism in Orissa, Nature of Indian Culture, The Radical Humanist, Volume 65. If you lack access, you can ask me for quotation or screenshot.

Same with Nontrinitarianism.

Bottom line would be, that these all contents have been added to the page, months or years ago. You should read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, there wouldn't be a need to apply WP:OR in any of the pages, or involve into WP:SYNTH, WP:DONTLIKEIT. 11:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Cnidaria (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Polymorphism

Jesus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ascension

Sarawak (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Malay

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Your edits are great.

Shkh.amir (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

unblocking

is it ok if you unblock me(jungleewan)? i was blocked unfairly and by the time i complain from the person,i wasblocked already.

respectfully, jungleewan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piachpia (talk • contribs) 21:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Religion in Belgium may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|caption = Religion in Belgium ([[Ipsos MORI]], 2011)<ref>name=IpsosMORI2011">''[http://www.fgi-tbff.org/sites/default/files/ebs_393_enelfinder/FGIImages/Research/
and Communication), published in [[Knack (magazine)|Knack magazine]] 22 November 2006 p.14 (The Dutch language term 'gelovig' was translated in the text as 'religious', more precisely it is a

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Islam revert

The User:Md iet didn't delete the image, they moved it. With your partial revert there are now two copies of the image in the article. Shenme (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

some semantics

Dear Septate, some important points to consider: Sunni Muslims are only a 'majority' if they make at least 51% of the Muslim population. The percentage point required for Sunnis to entitle themselves as 'vast majority' is probably subjective, but a minimum figure of 90% is likely to be appropriate. An example 1. Clearly 27% do not make a 'majority', let alone a 'vast majority'. Plus where there are statistics available, there is no harm using them. I do not see the need to remove them. Thanks --Peace world 15:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Religion in Comoros, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Religion in Nigeria. 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. Please don`t remove reliably sourced statistical data with a misleading edit summary. JimRenge (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Religion in Greece may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

], oil on canvas, 1865); this oil painting portrays [[Greek Muslims]] at prayer in a [[mosque]]).]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Islam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You were already blocked for doing this. NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Religion in Nigeria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 23 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Islam in Namibia page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ramadhan Greetings!

Dear Septate, inspite of our friction, Happy Ramadhan! Keep me in your prayers. --Peace world 15:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Islam in Belgium, you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Religion in Norway. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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. JimRenge (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Slovakia

I saw your recent edits on [Religion in Slovakia] and wondered if your claim: "There are an estimated 5,000 Muslims in Slovakia" is verifiable. (Ref. given: Sudor, Karol (2 October 2010). "Mešity majú cestu zarúbanú") When I recognized that this might be a websource without the link, I searched google and found this link which appears to be a blog/no reliable source with a reputation for fact checking. Please clarify why this website is a reliable source and give a translation of the sentence that claims there are an estimated 5,000 Muslims in Slovakia. The burden of proof is on you; unsourced or not reliably sourced claims will be removed. JimRenge (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to religion in Slovakia, the source which I stated is pretty much reliable because it gives a brief description of Muslims in Slovak lands. I got this source from Islam in Slovakia which states that The number of Muslims is unknown but there might be 5000 Muslims in Slovakia. Looks nothing wrong with it. Thanks again.Septate (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC) (copied from my talk page to keep the discussion in one place JimRenge (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC))

I understand from your answer that you can not verify that this website is a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and you did not give a translation of the sentence that claims there are an estimated 5,000 Muslims in Slovakia. (the number 5000 is not in the text). I will remove this claim from both texts. JimRenge (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear JimRenge, I have found another source which is secondary one i.e., it relies on an other source which is also reliable and it states that there are 5000 Muslims in Slovakia.

http://www.islamawareness.net/Europe/Slovakia/slovakia_news0002.html

I think there is no need to use this source because pew research is much more reliable.Septate (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I don`t think you could verify that this new website (http://www.islamawareness.net/Europe/Slovakia/slovakia_news0002.html) or its source (dead link) is a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking. I think you argument was WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I have corrected the articles with statistical data from a reliable source/Pew Research, data for 2010. The higher estimate given, should create no problem for your pro-Muslim POV. JimRenge (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Norway

Your addition of an oversized picture of a mosque with this edit appears to give WP:UNDUE weight to Islam in this context. Islam is a minority religion in Norway and there is already a picture of a mosque in the corresponding section. When I saw your recent edit on [Religion in Norway] I wondered if your claim: Islam is practiced by 3.4% of Norwegian population, making it the second largest religion in Norway after various forms of Christianity (ref.: Religious communities and life stance communities, 1 January 2013) is verifiable. There is no percentage given in the source you provided. It says there are 120 882 muslims in Norway in January 2013. Could you please explain why you give a number of 3.4%? Inaccurate statistical data will be removed. Happy Ramadhan JimRenge (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Lets continue this discussion on your talk page where it began. I have inserted a copy of your text here JimRenge (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC) :

Thanks a lot JimRenge for pointing out the absence of source. I will provide you source regarding 3.4% figure quickly. Thanks a lot.Septate (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear JimRenge, following reliable source gives an estimate of 3.7% for Muslims in Norway.

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/table-religious-composition-by-country-in-percentages/

When it comes to image, I think its not wp:UNDUE because image of a Church is also present on the article. It just depicts the religious diversity of Norway. Look at Religion in Guinea-Bissau, it is an image of a church in the lead despite the fact that Christians are only 10% of total population. I hope you will understand. Happy Ramadhan.Septate (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What is your concern now? Please tell me about it, I will answer it later. I am currently tired after a long period of fasting and I have to perform long prayers too. Thanks.Septate (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to explain why you gave a number of 3.4% muslims in Norway using this source (census 2013), because I attempted to understand how you extracted this 3,4% from the source. You prefer not to answer my question and gave a new source PewResearch /estimate for 2010 = 3.7%. I can see no valid reason to substitute the 2013 census data that corresponds to about 2,4% with an estimate (!) from 2010. It looks as if you were cherry-picking sources to get maximum values for Muslims.

The addition of an oversized image of a mosque

Sorry I have to repeat: Your addition of an oversized picture of a mosque with this edit appeared to give WP:UNDUE weight to Islam in this context. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." Islam is a minority religion in Norway and there is already a picture of a mosque in the corresponding section.

Your edits give me the impression that you might have a WP:COI conflict of interest. Your arguments correspond to WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

Please do not rely on administrators not seeing your edits or continually ignoring them. In the long run, you might end up indeffed or topic banned if you don't stop your disruptive editing. Please don`t take it personally and understand that I will react more formally if you continue to edit as if you were not here to build an encyclopedia WP:NOTHERE but to push a Muslim POV. Happy fasting and praying! JimRenge (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Religion in Norway. JimRenge (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What a hell are you doing JimRenge? I explained my edits regarding the image (by giving the example of Religion in Guinea-Bissau) and you raised no concern. The pew estimate is not 2010 estimate but in fact 2012 one. Read it carefully again as the date is mentioned on the top. Stop your stupid behaviour. Stop giving me block warnings.Septate (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong: The pew estimate for 2010 (!) was published on their website in December 18, 2012. Quote from the head of the table: "Est. 2010 percent that is Muslim".

I think we should discuss these edits on the talk page of Religion in Norway because other editors of the article may also be interested to give their comments. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baron Omar Rolf von Ehrenfels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Austrian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Islam in France

Can you please identify where in the sources these statements are made?

France has the largest number of Muslims in Western Europe.
Majority of Muslims in France belong to Sunni denomination.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:NeilN, thanks for pointing out. I will provide sources quickly.Septate (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@User:NeilN, I have provided sources. Please check them. Thanks.

Hi

Hi mate. My condolences on those who lost their lives on Srebrenica massacre. Hope that no one from your family was murdered by fascists. elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 18:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@elmasmelih. My family was safe during the deadly crises. My family was in Una-Sana Canton, when crises started and then we migrated to Australia. Furthurmore, they were not fascists, they were anti-Muslim Orthodox Serbs.Septate (talk) 04:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

My ex gf is Bosnian, their family fled before the war began, she told me that her grandpa sensed something will happen between Serbs and them. Oh and by the way, being anti-Muslim and anti-Bosnian makes them fascists. Take care dude.elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 07:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.Septate (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ahmedabad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sultan Ahmad Shah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Your recent editing history at Religion in Croatia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@ User:NeilN, see talk:Religion in the Czech Republic#Islam and Buddhism in lede and tell me who is wrong.Septate (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Islam in Switzerland may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Religion in Egypt

What are you referring to, "not verified"? [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Peaceworld111. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN see Talk:Religion in Russia#"Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source and get the answer.Septate (talk) 17

56, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't care. Call another editor a "big fat liar" again and you probably won't like the consequences. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Islam in Russia

Please explain why you deleted Ahmadi here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN see Talk:Religion in Russia#"Islam Outside the Arab World" p418 as a source and get the answer.Septate (talk) 17

57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

And this is my answer to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Religion in the United Arab Emirates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sharjah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014 ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You asked how the proposed limitation would work.

An indefinite revert limitation on all religion-related edits: not more than 1 revert per 48 hours per article, with the extra slowdown condition that before you make any content revert (including vandalism), you would be required to first open a discussion on the article talk page, to provide an explanation of your intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion.

You understand what a revert is. Here is an example of two reverts: another editor made this edit, and you reverted it, and then a third editor reverted you.

What you would have to do in this situation would be to post a clear statement on the article talk page saying what you were going to do, and explaining why this was a good idea. Then wait at least 6 hours for discussion. You would be expected to take note of the discussion in deciding whether to make the edit to the article. If there had been no discussion, you could go ahead 6 hours after you posted the statement on the talk page.

You would also have to be careful not to do a revert on an article, if you had done a revert on the same article less than 48 hours before.

The restriction would only apply to religion-related edits.

If you made a mistake (we all do), you would be expected to self-revert as soon as you noticed that you had broken the restriction, or as soon as someone pointed it out to you.

If you broke the restriction you could be blocked for a week for breaking the restriction. And if you kept on breaking it, the blocks might get bigger. (e.g. 1st time 1 week, 2nd time 1 month, etc.)

The reason the restriction would include reverting vandalism, is that I know from another editor's experience how hard it is in the situation to distinguish between vandalism and non-vandalism. The idea is to make things clear, so you do not break the restriction.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Toddy1.Septate (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Proactively applying the retractions to yourself before the inevetiable closure of the discussion would probably be a good thing. --Adam in MO Talk

July 2014

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Korma, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Breawycker (talk to me!) 03:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

An article very much needs a fresh pair of eyes

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Septate: alternative proposal, Iryna Harpy made a suggestion at 23:25, 21 July 2014: saying that he/sjhe would "actually like to encourage Septate to try to do some editing in non-religious subject areas of Wikipedia in order to develop a better sense of interacting with other editors/contributors without his (Septate is a he) emotional baggage triggering his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Restrictions are a useful tool, but learning to edit in an environment where he doesn't feel that he is constantly on the defensive or offensive might be a positive experience. If nothing else, it would give him a chance to develop his understanding of policies and guidelines." I think this is a good idea.

As a favour, please could you have a look at the article on the New Russia Party. If you compare the version 1 June with the current version you will see the changes that have taken place. Please review changes, and use your own judgment.

Look at the sources being cited - are they being fairly represented?

Are some people trying to censor information?

Please use the talk page to explain any reverts you want to make. It would be good practice, to explain any reverts or controversial changes on the talk page six hours before making the change.

The article very much needs a fresh pair of eyes - and you are completely unbiased on this subject.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Toddy1. I will try my best to improve this article.Septate (talk) 06:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Boko name

Dude. I just spent hours writing that, because it really needed doing. Surely u agree? I think I did a pretty good job, anyway. zzz 07:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signedzzz (talk • contribs)

Please don't remove sourced info from the article. You have removed refs from lede also without explanation. My suggestion is to discuss your edits on article's talk page first.

Community imposed edit restriction

Per a consensus of the community at WP:ANI you are now subject to the following restrictions indefinitely for all edits which are related to religion:

1) 1 revert per 48 hours per article (see WP:1RR for more information).
2) Before he makes any content revert (including vandalism), he is required to first open a discussion on the article talk page, to provide an explanation of his intended revert and then wait 6 hours before actually making it to allow time for discussion.

If you violate these restrictions you may be blocked to enforce them or further restricted (such as a ban) by the community. If you wish to appeal these restrictions please do so at WP:AN, though I suggest that you wait at least 3-6 months before appealing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You've broken your edit restrictions

I've brought this up at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 12:39, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Community imposed topic ban

Per a consensus of the community at WP:ANI you are now subject to the following sanction:

Topic ban from all articles, talk pages and subpages of both which are related to religion, broadly construed, for a period of no less than 6 months.

If you violate this sanction you may be blocked to enforce them or the period you are banned may be extended by any uninvolved adminisrator. If you wish to appeal these restrictions please do so at WP:AN, though per the sanction you should not do so for at least 6 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aegialiinae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caelius. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"Hate"?

I've seen this post and feel I should answer. I don't "hate" you at all. I don't know you. But I have seen you edit in an unacceptable way, which has gone beyond edit-warring. You have a tendency to try to "get round" the rules. This has included deceptive edit summaries, claiming agreement on talk pages where there was none, and seemingly pretending that you haven't breached your edit restriction when all can see you had (and you must have known you had). If the way you edit became widespread, then Wikipedia would collapse in chaos. I would be very happy for you to edit Wikipedia, including religion-related articles, if you were to follow policy. If you think that I said what I said because I "hate" you then you haven't understood what has happened at ANI. Please don't fool yourself into thinking that what has happened is because anyone "hates" you. You need to read and understand what everyone has said and work on not doing it again. If you do that I'm sure you would become a very successful and productive editor - which would make me very happy. DeCausa (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa please leave this topic. Please look at my edit history and review the articles I have created because no one has reviewed them yet. Thanks.Septate (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Good work! It's not a subject I know anything about, so I don't think I can be much help to you. I tried checking the references in Eupoecila evanescens and Eupoecila intricata. It may be that I don't know my way around the websites in question, but I couln't see where Atlas of Living Australia describes characteristics (per citation 1 in evanescens and citation 2 in inscripta.) Also, does Encyclopedia of Life comply with WP:RS? It looked like a wiki that anyone can edit it.

I don't know if you are aware, but it can be useful to use citation templates which help to make the citations look more uniform and professional: take a look at Help:Citation Style 1. If you are citing from google books, I find this a useful tool. You put the url of the page of the book you want to cite and it automatically generates a Wiki-ready citation properly formatted. Speeds up creating citations. DeCausa (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DeCausa for your help!Septate (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orphninae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cocoa. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of Hinduism.

Hello Septate. I am Akshatra. I saw your edit on Wikipedia page of Criticism of Hinduism. You are kindly requested to please add it to your watch-list. A user repeatedly deletes the content as if Wikipedia is a Hindu website. With kind regards, Akshatra (talk) 17:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Akshatra: Septate is topic banned from all religion articles for six months. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sathya Sai Organization, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Your views and actions

Firstly, you need to stop posting speeches quoting hadiths on neutral editors talk pages. They don't care about hadith. Secondly, stop edit-warring. You've already breeched 3RR and if I wanted to, I could report you and you may suffer a ban. But I'll refrain from doing that if you just relax and stop further disruptions. Lastly, if you want to engage in a discussion with me quoting hadiths etc. you can email me and I'll refute your POV, but such discussions do not belong on wikipedia. cӨde1+6^LogicBomb! 14:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

@User:Code16 Can u explain where have I violated 3RR?Septate (talk) 12:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, i just noticed, it looks like you stopped just short of 3RR, since your 3rd edit was unrelated to my edits. In any case, such behavior is not appreciated by Admins, especially by people like yourself which have suffered a 6 month topic ban, for this same topic before. So I advice you to tread carefully. And instead of hopelessly trying to edit-war and posting hadith-based arguments (which won't help you,) engage me personally via email if you wish to preach your views or have an ideological debate, but don't post them on wikipedia because that is not what we do here. cӨde1+6^LogicBomb! 14:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gautama Buddha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercury. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you recently removed some content from India without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban on religion

Hi Septate. In this edit, a topic ban on religion related material was imposed on you. I see you've been making religion related edits (e.g., [2]) and assume that the topic ban was lifted. Could you confirm that? @Callanecc: --regentspark (comment) 13:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the topic ban is still in force. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Septate. You need to explain your edits over the past few weeks which seem to be entirely on the subject of religion. Please either show that your topic ban has been rescinded or explain them adequately. I see that you edit only intermittently but you could be facing an indef ban for violating the restriction placed on you. --regentspark (comment) 20:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I was topic banned for 6 months. The duration of which is over!Septate (talk) 05:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hi Septate. Unless you can show otherwise, note that the topic ban on religion topics remains in place for you. One more edit on religion and you will be indef blocked. When in doubt as to whether something is religion related or not, I suggest you skip that edit and move on. Best wishes. --regentspark (comment) 12:54, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Dear regentspark & Callanecc I was banned from making religion related edits for 6 months on 1 August 2014. Abiding by this rule I didn't make edits for even longer duration of time as u can check by edit history. Now this ban is long over. Hope this clarifies your doubts. Thanks! Septate (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Septate. The wording of the topic ban says that the ban was for a minimum of six months and that you needed to file an appeal to have it removed. Therefore it is still in place. You'll need to appeal it at WP:AN to have it removed (or you could appeal to Callanecc). --regentspark (comment) 14:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok misunderstanding on my part. I request Callanecc here to remove the ban as I abided by this rule for a period of more than six months and didn't engage in any offence to this ban imposed on me. I assure that I will not become involved again in any activity that was responsible for this ban. Thanks! Septate (talk) 15:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I was just assessing the consensus on ANI, so you will need to appeal at AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Septate. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Religion topic ban

Hi Septate, regarding your edit to the lead of FGM, so far as I can tell (see the latest discussion in July 2016), you're still under a religion topic ban. Before you can edit in that area, you need to go to WP:AN and ask that it be lifted. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal result

Please see Special:Diff/856282056. The topic ban remains in effect. If you have any questions after viewing the close, please feel free to let me know and I will respond when possible. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)