PJDF2367

September 2013

Hello, I'm Jamesx12345. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ali, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. James^x12345 20:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of the Camel may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [Muhammad]]'s cousin and son-in-law, [[Commander of the Faithful]]) and forces allied to [[Aisha]] (widow of Muhammad, and Mother of the Believers (Arabic: ''Umm-al-[[Mu'min]]een''), who wanted
• http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/088.sbt.html#009.088.219 088.219-223]></ref> eventually had the desired effect. With several thousand men from Kufa reinforcing his army,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi PJDF2367! 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! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Ali

Your edits at Ali violate several Wikipedia policies--most notably, WP:V, which requires that infomation be verified by reliable sources, and WP:NPOV, which requires that all articles be neutral in tone. Please stop edit warring to add policy violating material; instead, go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You've done it again; you still kept the non-neutral language, and your sources were not any better. If you don't stop adding this non-neutral, poorly sourced info, you're likely to be blocked from editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Again...This is your final warning. The next time you inserted poorly sourced and/or non-neutral material into Wikipedia, or you engage in edit warring on an article, I will block you. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on Shia Islam

You appear to be involved in an edit war on Shia Islam. Please stop, and discuss the matter with the other party (Edward321 (talk · contribs)), preferably at Talk:Shia Islam, so others can be involved in the discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for repeatedly adding non-neutral, unsourced, or poorly sourced material to a variety of Wikipedia pages. This needs to stop. Now. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Qwyrxian (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to First Fitna, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Qwyrxian (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Camel Article

Hi PJDF2367

We have been working on these articles for a year and went through all the sources Sunni, Shia, Roman and the Jewish sources from the time and the work of the recent western academics on these events. A large number of people have been involved on this project. You could go through the discussions on the Muawiyah talk page. There is a lot of material out there, in both the Sunni and the Shia sources about the Kawarij. Just get hold of the old books and you will see how important a role they played in the early days of Islam. Many old scholars that both the Sunnis and Shia respect, worked together on these books from Madina. There is a lot of common content in these old books and this is recognized by modern academics too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muawiyah_I

PJDF2367, I noticed that you have reverted all the work every one has put into this and all the references. Can you please put back the referenced content. If you have an issues, please discuss it. If there are references that you disagree with please also highlight your issues with them and we could reach a consensus. But just deleting all the content without any discussion is not the right approach. There are references in there from the earliest books written in Madina and from both the early Sunni and Shia sources and from Jewish and Roman books from the time and from modern western academics. There is a lot of common content in both the early Sunni and the early Shia sources about these events. These were extremely tragic events and one needs to learn from them. The early scholars like Imam Jafar and Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik understood this and worked together and you could still read their books. They are in the middle ground. Many of the references that you removed were from these old books from Madina. The Sunni and Shia arguments have been letting down the whole Islam section on Wikipedia and people need to get away from these arguments and show the actual historical data from the earliest sources most closest to the events and from modern neutral academics. I hope you understand. When you start digging and researching through these very old books written in Madina within the first 150 years of the passing of Muhammad, you will soon see how closely these early scholars worked and you will also see references to the Khawarij in every early book. Unfortunately many of the most critical scholars like Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr are now almost forgotten by both the Sunnis and the Shias yet they are critical to the formation of Fiqh and Sharia. But the Sunnis and Shia spend more time arguing on Wikipedia than actually making the effort to read these early books. I hope you all understand --Johnleeds1 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of the Camel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kufah (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) 11:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Siffin

PJDF2367, why did you remove a large chunk of sourced text from Battle of Siffin? You need to explain when you make edits like that in the edit summary; looking over your contributions, as far as I can tell, you almost never leave edit summaries, and I don't think you've ever engaged in a talk page discussion. Please note that Wikipedia is a collaborative environment--that means you have to discuss matters when you disagree with other editors. Now, maybe your removal on that article was perfectly correct per our policies, but unless you explain why, we can't know what you're thinking. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Indus River, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Saddhiyama (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Afghan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timurid

Babur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timurid

Battle of the Camel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Salah

Ghazni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timurid

Grandparent (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timurid

Greater Khorasan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timurid

Human swimming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timurid

Kandahar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timurid

Khorasan Province (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timurid

Roast goose (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Timurid

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

What picture is appropriate on the "Afghan" article?

Please feel free to weigh in on the discussion at Afghan#What picture is appropriate?. --Bejnar (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Army of the Mughal Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal (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) 11:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Akbar

Hi, it may not be your intention but you have recently added content cited to primary sources in the article (Baday'uni, this is not allowed and has been discussed before on the talk page), you have also grossly changed content without any explanation some of it is even unsourced and seem like a WP:NPOV violation. Care to explain yourself? For the last time, please use the WP:edit summary. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

User:PJDF2367 Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Akbar. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. You have removed large portions of text without any edit summary. You did this after you were warned by Ugog Nizdast. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

PJDF2367 (talk · contribs): Hello, I'm Fowler&fowler. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mughal Empire because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You cannot remove a large portion of sourced text, especially one that has been stably in an article for a long time without some explanation in the edit summary and concurrent discussion on the talk page. Please also familiarize yourself with WP:V and WP:NOR. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

PJDF2367 (talk · contribs): Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mughal Empire. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. I have explained to you clearly you need to proceed by taking the discussion to the talk page. Please read WP:BRD.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

PJDF2367 (talk · contribs): Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mughal Empire, you may be blocked from editing. This is your third warning. You cannot edit war your way into adding unencyclopedic and POV edits. You need to first explain what you are attempting to do on the talk page per WP:BRD and gain consensus for them on Talk:Mughal Empire. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines

Dear PDFJ2367, Thank you for making a post on Talk:Mughal Empire. New threads are begun at the bottom of the talk page, not the top. The best way to do this is to click on the "New Section" link at the very top of the page. Please also sign your posts by add four tildes, ~~~~ at the end of your post. Please read WP:Talk page guidelines. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 week for continuing to try to force your versions of articles through edit warring. You made a step in the right direction by starting to discuss on a talk page...but then you went right back to trying to force your way. You have to understand--we work together, in collaboration. People decide by consensus how articles should work, guided by our policies and guidelines. You cannot just insist that your version is better and try to "win" by continually reverting to your version. If you are unable or unwilling to edit collaboratively, then you just can't edit here. Again, after the block, go back to the discussions and work there with others to get consensus. If you can't come to consensus by yourselves, you can use dispute resolution to seek outside input. If you are willing to do that immediately (i.e., agree to no more edit warring, and only discussion), I will unblock you, but you just cannot continue on the same path. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Hulagu Khan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

Jochi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)