User talk:Mandalorian123

May 2020

Hello, I'm GreaterPonce665. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to American University of Beirut have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 18:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Mandalorian123. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Fadlo R. Khuri, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 14:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at American University of Beirut. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 14:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Fadlo R. Khuri, you may be blocked from editing. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at American University of Beirut. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 19:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

Visioncurve^{Haec lux solis, relinquentes senex mundi} 09:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing this information about the three-revert rule. No further violations of it will be made.

November 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fadlo R. Khuri; 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 18:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mandalorian123, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sockpuppetry. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Fadlo R. Khuri. MrClog (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal analysis. All information presented is factual and based on subject's own statements and neutral third-party information sources. Your edits are section blanking and express neither any specific concerns nor any alternate information. You may be blocked from editing without further warning.

@Mandalorian123: You've been asked to engage with these issues in Talk:Fadlo_R._Khuri rather than by edit warring. I'm happy to do that and suggest you do the same. The edits you made turned the article to something resembling "an attack page" according to MrClog, a neutral third-party volunteer responder. Let's respect the site and its rules and solve this. CorneliusVanDyck (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make another attempt at explaining what's going on here. I removed information based on a complaint received by the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team (which I am a member of). You reinstated this, and were ultimately blocked for a week for using a sockpuppet, which isn't kosher here. An administrator (Johnuniq) instructed you to engage with the concerns raised on the talk page before reinserting any information. I certainly raised mine there. You seem to have different plans, instead simply continuing to edit war. This is not permitted. Especially when dealing with biographies of living persons, strict policies apply. Please cease your edit warring and sockpuppeteering, and come to the talk page to discuss the issue. --MrClog (talk) 17:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Fadlo R. Khuri) 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 ~~~~}}. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]