User talk:Dreamz rosez

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rafida. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.

You have been blocked. TWINKLE

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuous disruptive revert warring and sockpuppetry. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Shiasm edits.

Please discuss on the talk pages on individual matters of why you do not like the new edits. I've explained on the talk pages and elsewhere on Shia groups their reasons. Thanks. --Enzuru 23:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Warning

The article Rafida has been protected due to your edit warring. Any further disruption may lead to a temporary restriction of editing privileges. – Riana _ऋ 10:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, and advice from other users, I have reblocked this account for 2 weeks, for edit warring and sockpuppetry. If you believe this block was unjust, please place {{unblock}} on your talk page and another administrator will review this block. – Riana_ऋ 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. (info: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Editing beyond one's level of competence

A final word (at least with respect to this particular one of your ever-morphing accounts) -- to make significant edits on the English-language Wikipedia, one needs an ability to write reasonably natural-sounding expository English prose, and (if one's edits attract controversy), the ability to explain and defend one's edits using minimallly coherent English discourse. Since you demonstrably lack both of these requisites, it would seem to be mere common sense and basic courtesy on your part to defer to those who do possess these needed skills. AnonMoos