Neolloa999

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Islam in the United States‎ shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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 may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Islam in Denmark. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Islam in the United States

Your last edit violated the 3RR rule. Please self-revert or I will report you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

See WP:ANEW#User:Neolloa999 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Islam in the United States. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Islam in Denmark

I have reverted your edit because it introduces a figure that conflicts with the cited source. You mentioned the CIA World Factbook in your edit summary. If that source's figures don't jibe with the ones given by the cited source, the best thing to do is to open a discussion on the article's talk page to seek input from other editors on how to proceed. But simply tossing out a mention of an alternative source doesn't do the trick. Please don't do that. Rivertorch (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

edit warring

Please take your opinion to the talk page rather than edit warring at List of languages by number of native speakers. Your numbers do not agree with our sources, and your source does not cover the languages listed in the article. Besides not being a WP:reliable source. And the fact that your numbers are not supported by your own source. And, oh yeah, they're not counting native speakers. — kwami (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I see you've already been blocked for edit warring. It will happen again, for longer, if you don't stop. Take your opinions and sources to the talk page. — kwami (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Islam in Denmark again

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Islam in Denmark. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. I'm sorry to template you, but you didn't reply to my earlier message and you haven't opened a discussion on the article's talk page. In addition to introducing demonstrably incorrect content, you're also slow-motion edit warring. Are you willing to discuss it now? Rivertorch (talk) 17:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

and again

You've had plenty of warnings, from others besides me, and you're clearly unwilling to engage in dialogue. Please stop your disruptive editing. The sentence reads, "According to the U.S. Department of State..." and cites that source. Changing the figure and the citation gives the erroneous impression that the U.S. Department of State provided information that it never provided. Can you not see that? This is repeated introduction of a factual error, which is absolutely prohibited at Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to List of countries by Muslim population. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. That column is for figures sourced to http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/ so that they can be compared. For other numbers use the other sources column and don't forget to add the source or it will be removed. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at List of countries by Muslim population, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. That column is for figures sourced to http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/ so that they can be compared. For other numbers use the other sources column and don't forget to add the source or it will be removed. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

List of countries by Muslim population

Just want to try and help you understand as you obviously didn't get it the first time. The columns where you are adding the figures are called "Muslim population 2010 Pew Report" and "Muslim percentage (%) of total population 2010 Pew Report". Notice that they both say they are from the 2010 Pew Report' found at http://features.pewforum.org/muslim-population/ and not from a CIA report. The CIA figures can be put in the columns listed as "Muslim population Other sources" and "Muslim percentage (%) Other sources" but there needs to be a source. Just putting in the edit summary that they are from the CIA isn't good enough. If you need help with linking to the CIA site then please come and ask on my talk page. Having the figures taken from one source makes life easier for the reader to compare one country to another but using different sources makes it harder. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have made a report and it can be seen Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Neolloa999 reported by User:CambridgeBayWeather (Result: ). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of three days for edit warring, as you did at List of countries by Muslim population. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

You need to stop creating sockpuppets to edit the List of countries by Muslim population article. The article, like all others, has a talk page and you should use it to discuss your concerns before you end up being blocked indefinitely. By the way when you reverted here I think you forgot to check the link you gave to http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/28/muslim-population-country-projection-2030 as that page uses the same Pew figures that I was using. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to your block evasion, I have just increased your block to a week. Please, wait until it expires and, then, start discussing the issue on the article's talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked your latest sockpuppet. Did you not understand that http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/28/muslim-population-country-projection-2030 does not match the figures you are putting in? It is the same Pew figures that were used before. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Since you continue evading your block, I have just increased it to a month and semi-protected the article. Please, just sit this block out; the next time you try to evade it, it will probably be increased to indefinite. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)