User talk:Islamuslim

references removed from Sharia article were useful

Hi Islamuslim, I'm not involved in any of these disputes you are having, but let me say the references to Roman Law, Common Law and Civil Law you removed from the second paragraph on Sharia article were useful. They really should be put back in. There are also references to these other systems of law further down in the article, true, but this line is not redundant.

The opening of the article should outline all the important points that will be covered in the article. Removing these important references from the beginning of the article undermines the structural integrity of the article. Thanks Aquib (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aqib--As Islamuslim is blocked, you should feel free to take those steps yourself. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 09:39, 1 April 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been using talk page for articles and discussion page for user to discuss my point of views. I have already spoke to these admins (talk), (talk).

Decline reason:

No sign that the blocked user has understood that editwarring is not acceptable. Editwarring is not acceptable and you should seek all other venues of dispute resolution rather than engage in editwarring. Discussion on the talk page does not justify continued editwarring on the article page.

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.

·Maunus·ƛ· 11:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Major religious groups. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. (Evidence) Angelo De La Paz (talk) 10:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Block evasion following evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Islamuslim. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Islamuslim for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. O Fenian (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

copy from Eurabia

When you add a big part of an article in another article, please at least put "copy from Eurabia" in the diff' comment. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

Due to your persistent block evasion, I have now extended your block to indefinite. Regards, –MuZemike 21:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fazaia Degree College, Faisal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fazaia Degree College, Faisal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fazaia Degree College, Faisal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BookishReader (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]