User talk:Mohammed al-Bukhari

You are not learning

You will be blocked

Gregkaye ✍♪ 18:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification

I have reported your 1RR infringement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

Felino123 (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the one-revert rule, as you did at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. In accordance with a July 2013 motion and community consensus on August 2013, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours when reverting logged-in users. See this page for further details. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks or other sanctions (such as page or topic bans). 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.

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.   Wifione ^Message 02:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

General sanctions: Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. PBS (talk) 12:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Swaywoof, STOP USING THIS LOGIN!!!

PLEASE LISTEN

You will get banned for an extremely long time IF you don't play by the rules. DO NOT continue to use the login Swaywoof.

You did not listen to me before and YOU GOT BANNED.

LISTEN NOW.

WAIT! WATCH! READ! but DON'T edit.

Have some respect for others and the rules of Wikipedia.

Do not continue with Swaywoof or any other login or things will be bad for you.

You do not reply to others and think that you can just carry on with what you want without responding.

Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Khawarij

A content was added to the talk page as follows:

Khawarij is a word mentioned in Hadith to define Islamic Extremist in the 7th century. Narrated Yusair bin 'Amr: I asked Sahl bin Hunaif, "Did you hear the Prophet saying anything about Al-Khawarij?" He said, "I heard him saying while pointing his hand towards Iraq. "There will appear in it (i.e, Iraq) some people who will recite the Quran but it will not go beyond their throats, and they will go out from (leave) Islam as an arrow darts through the game's body.' "

This is clear example that Khawarij are Islamic extremists

I am genuinely interested. Why don't you add any points to this. Where in the Hadith?

Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sock-puppet investigation

It is suspected that you have opened an account in the name of Swaywoof in order to continue pursuing your edits. This is called sock-puppeting and is serious. An investigation into this has been opened today. General information on sock-puppeting is at WP:SOCK and your case is listed here at WP:SPI. You will find your name in the list and if you click on it, it will take you to your case. For ease of reference, this is the link that will take you directly to your case here. Please note that you do have the right to defend yourself, in the part near the end under "Comments by other users". In small writing it says that you can add your comments and there is a link "Defending yourself against claims" to help you with this. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You must keep to the rules, Mohammed. If you don't, you could be blocked altogether from editing in Wikipedia. This has happened to editors before who have not kept to the rules. Remember you can give your explanation for this new account in the section I guided you to. I would imagine your inexperience as a new editor will be taken into account. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Details of the second account you are suspected to have opened using the name Tipszelig have been added to the SPI investigation form here. Remember you have the right to defend yourself as explained above. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for sock puppetry. 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.  Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)