User talk: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^x1 2345 20:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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://wiki.riteme.site/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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)