User talk:LePatro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Hello, I'm

reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

"Mecca is a city in the Tihamah" is misleading because Tihamah is ill-defined. "Mecca is a city in the Hejaz" is not misleading. Thus what were you correcting here [1]? Materialscientist (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. Britannica has an article on Hejaz, and it says that both Mecca and Medina lie within it. Materialscientist (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And he is making this change in dozens of articles; other changes even made to title of books. Non-careful editing. Hmains (talk) 03:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LePatro, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi LePatro! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

talk) 01:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Replacing "Hejaz" with "Tihamah"

I recently reverted your replacements of the term "Hejaz" with "Tihamah" since the sources in those articles use Hejaz, and either way they don't describe the same regions, the former broadly describing the mountainous strip of western Arabia and the latter describing a smaller area of the southern coastal Hejaz and western coastal Yemen. Could you explain your rationale? Thank you. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. That maybe the historical context, but apparently it usually refers only to that southern part of the coastline while the Hejaz is defined more broadly and normally includes both Mecca and Medina, from Tabuk to the Asir mountains. The Hejaz is certainly used more often. I also think we should stick with Hejaz since that what the sources in those articles say. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt what the original definition used to be or what the early Arab scholars defined Tihama and Hejaz as, but the modern definition is different than the past one and it's the modern usage that we have to apply on Wiki. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

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. Thank you. --Omar-toons (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Thanks to read
WP:TRUTH
.
So, no matter what a unique source says and what was the place called 14 centuries ago, it is widely accepted and reported by the vast majority of RS that all these topics are related to Hedjaz, not "Timamah".
Thanks for understanding.
--Omar-toons (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut&Paste moves

Hi, and thank you for

cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history
, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the

Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --Omar-toons (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

March 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an

try to reach a consensus
rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. 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; 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. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
--Omar-toons (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS

Thanks to read

reliable source. --Omar-toons (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]