You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop your disruptive editing, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
i thank you prodego, pls see the discussion page and you will understand the issue. ReligionScholar (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
prodego please see the article in the current form and let us know if the compromise is good. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Instead of stating what you think is true, you need to read and abide by Wikipedia's policies, including:
Spend an hour reading them, and then think about your arguments, and how you want to edit. You have to play within the rules. If you play Football, you can't say, the rule is stupid, I'm not going to abide by it, or the referee will kick you out. It's the same in Wikipedia; you want to edit, edit by the rules. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk)
Do you believe that Muslim scholars who call Hindus People of the Book wrong? Do you believe that Shi'a Muslims in Iran who call Zoroastrians People of the Book wrong? They are interpreting the same Quaranic verse as you are. That's why you need to use secondary sources. Please read the policies noted above. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
a very small minority of shias would consider zoroastrianism as people of the book not even considering hinduism with all their idols. muslims in india and pakistan are in the billions?? i think you mean millions and as i said before it is the smallest minority among them that would have an "opinion" of hinduism as people of the book. Everyone knows that hinduism is a non-abrahamic religion what makes you think that hindus are regarded as people of the book? regardless of any of this there is a seperate section where you can discuss all this. the lead and the definition contains facts of islam, pls do not change this. thanks ReligionScholar (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
i may have used a wrong word in calling shia "controversial" the word probably be different and i have omitted that now. what i was trying to say was that anyone among shias who considers hinduism as people of the book, that opinion would be controversial and they are small minority, similar in india. there is a seperate section which you can use. dont change the FACTS ReligionScholar (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
prodego please see the current version and you will understand that it is completely neutral. jeff3000 you have given nothing but opinions. i have already put in the article the fact straight from the quran, surah maidah which clearly outlines the people of the book. yet you have tried to purposefully remove this fact and replace it with "opinions". the surah is in its rightful place in the definition section as hard facts. ReligionScholar (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
see discussion page, i am not going to waste anymore time. if you want to discuss something talk about it on the discussion page not on my page. if you cannot understand plain english that is not my problem. i have already shown you surah maidah, its in plain english and there is only one way of interpreting it. ReligionScholar (talk) 09:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.
Here's another 3RR warning. If you are going to be a valuable contributer to Wikipedia you need to follow by the rules, which means you cannot undo other editors edits more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Please see WP:AN3#User:ReligionScholar reported by Jeff3000 (talk) (Result: ). You will be blocked if you don't agree to stop revert-warring on People of the Book. You've had plenty of time to figure out our policies. This stuff can't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
i did not know that.
but if that is the case then everytime i put the article in the neutral form you changed it back to the biased form, so you are in violation of the rule as well. ReligionScholar (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
i think i get it. you are posing as different usernames to avoid the rule. is that right? so i am probably dealing with the same person since ip addresses are randomly selected. ReligionScholar (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
so if the 3 of you are hindus then you would obviously have consensus among yourselves as compared to consesus with me. i have put the article in the neutral form many times but you have simply removed my facts and the others gained consensus with you and not me.
another point is that you keep saying you know muslim scholars who consider hindus as people of the book. if i am not mistaken muslims in india hate hindus and vice versa. i doubt you will find any muslim in india who is going to consider hindus as people of the book. ReligionScholar (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
ReligionScholar, I'm afraid you have not made a good answer. You've had plenty of warnings and explanations. If you don't *immediately* agree to stop edit-warring on this article, you will be blocked. You will also have to apologize for the 12 reverts. I suggest that you agree to stop editing this article for a week. EdJohnston (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
ok then
does that mean i can edit the discussion page and my page but i cant edit the article?
that is fine i guess but could you make sure that when the lock is put on the article, the article is in the neutral form and not the current biased form.
although 1 week seems like a lot! are you sure it has to be that long? ReligionScholar (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
so if i get "blocked", how long does it last?
or is that something bad that goes on my credit history in wikipedia
how can the discussion not reflect well when i dont even know the policies to begin with.
damn you make it sound like wikipedia is the supreme court or something.
i think i will go with option A, which is not editing article for one week.
so "EdJohnston" what is your rank in wikipedia? are you like the sheriff or something? ReligionScholar (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
i just read the definition of "edit warring" and if you look at the format i put the article in. mine was probably the most neutral format. if anything the other users were probably the ones who were in involved in edit warrings. ReligionScholar (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, time has just run out. You are blocked for 31 hours for Edit Warring at People of the Book. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
i dont get it, i already agreed to option A ReligionScholar (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
does not matter ReligionScholar (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
lawyer type responses? i thought i was joking around and having fun.
i think i already admitted before that i did not know that i did something wrong because i dont know wikipedia policy.
anyway it does not matter, i guess i learnt something new ReligionScholar (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
This is with reference to your arguments on People of the book page where you claimed that the article should only contain Jews, Christians (and perhaps Sabians) since these are the only people mentioned by name in the Quran. While appreciating the value in your opinion I wished to make the following points:
Regards-Shahab (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Please bear in mind one of the directions at the top of the talk page: "Put new text under old text." New sections go at the bottom of the page. As a compromise, I've made your "More references..." section a subsection of the "Excellent answer..." thread at the bottom of the section. —C.Fred (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)