Revision as of 20:42, 31 May 2016 editXenophrenic (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,497 edits +notify← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:12, 31 May 2016 edit undoNyttend (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators286,401 edits →Note: BlockedNext edit → | ||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
==Note== | ==Note== | ||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 20:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC) | ] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 20:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC) | ||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''604,800 seconds''' for ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. </div><!-- Template:uw-block --> ] (]) 21:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:12, 31 May 2016
You are invited to discuss a controversial article you edited previously
You are invited to comment on the article "List of expeditions ordered by Muhammad" in the Misplaced Pages Administrators Notice Board. Your input is highly valued as you edited this article previously.
Click here: Controversial Islamic Article-90% of page wiped out by Muslims, possible bias to comment--Misconceptions2 (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions on all pages regarding Muhammad
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Muhammad, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Template:Z33 — MusikAnimal 16:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Expedition of Hamza ibn 'Abdul-Muttalib, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hijra and Ansar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Rashidun Caliphate and Rashidun
I notice you added {{merge}} to both articles but didn't start a discussion as to why. Also by adding the same merge template to both articles the link to the discussion would link to two different talk pages. See this and this. One should have {{merge to}} and the other {{merge from}}. This would make things clearer for others and would locate the discussion one one page. I have removed them on a temporary basis until you figure out which way they should merge. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Asking for some input in on going investigation,
Hi there;
I'm asking for some input in an on going investigation concerning alleged sock-puppetry by Misconceptions2, your input would be much valued, regards.
14:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
- @CounterTime: Thanks for this. I think you covered pretty much everything that needs to be said. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
April 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.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. — MusikAnimal 21:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Edit warring
Your recent editing history at Islamophobia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Note
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 604,800 seconds for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.