User talk:SALAMMK

August 2014

Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Prophets in Islam without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please 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. Thanks! NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Prophets in Islam. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AHMADIYYA JAMAATHU

AHMADIYYA JAMAATHU

IT IS NOT A MUSLIM JAMAATHU, IT IS A NON MUSLIM JAMAATHU, COMENLY KNOWN AS "KAFIR"كافر THAT IS TRUE.¬¬¬¬

SALAMMK (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AHMADIYYA JAMAATHU

plz c the page http//Muslim-Wikipedia.orgSALAMMK (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ahmadiyya jamaathu

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Ahmadiyya jamaathu, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

The page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. (See section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.
It is an "attack page", and appears to be primarily intended to disparage or threaten its subject. This includes biographies of living people that are unsourced and entirely negative in tone. (See section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks; attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
It covers a topic on which we already have an article - Ahmadiyya. (See section A10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Ahmadiyya, or to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Peace world 18:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ahmadiyya jamaathu

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Ahmadiyya jamaathu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. BethNaught (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Your recent editing history at Prophets in Islam shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as you did at Ahmadiyya jamaathu, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:SALAMMK reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for disruptive editing, including violating WP:3RR at Prophets in Islam, WP:CIR, and WP:NOTHERE. 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) 14:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SALAMMK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

what is the reason to block me to two weeks--SALAMMK (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The reason is given in the block notice above. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

SALAMMK (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have no idea to use unblock this page, some of the administratore are used to my account to block,they are no reason to block my account,if the account SALAMMK is unblocked i have so many woks to complete in wikipedia in several topic. we have so many article to introduce--SALAMMK (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC) SALAMMK (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reasons for your block, including edit warring and repeated recreation of inappropriate articles, as indicated multiple times above. Kinu ^t/_c 19:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Prophets in Islam. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]