Navonedu

Edit-warring

I strongly recommend you open a discussion at Talk:Atif Aslam and seek consensus for the version of the article that you prefer. So far, two editors have opposed the content in the Legacy/impact section, yet the best you can do is restore it with the erroneous justification that you are reverting vandalism? News flash: That's not vandalism. This is a community editing project, and if you're not willing to communicate, then you will likely wind up unwelcome here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Your recent editing history at Atif Aslam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Read WP:BRD - when material you've added is removed, the onus is on you to start a talk page discussion. Multiple people have told you to discuss your edits and you have only just done so, but have called good faith edits "vandalism". They aren't, you just don't like the edits. Read WP:NOTVAND. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment, meaning you have to work with other editors and seek consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)