User talk:ShaniAli1lo

ShaniAli1lo, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ShaniAli1lo! 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 experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Abu Hurairah#Wording

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abu Hurairah#Wording. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally hypocritical by Emir the original change was made by one ip who got away with the edit this biased behaviour by Emir needs to end the original text was what I wrote the new one was modified by a random ip editor who may I add seems to be getting support by Emir possibly a sock of Emir? ShaniAli1lo (talk)

To report a sock please go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Abdullah ibn Saba'. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Abdullah ibn Saba' was changed by ShaniAli1lo (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.873421 on 2017-08-26T15:19:08+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Abdullah ibn Saba' shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ka'ab al-Ahbar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. 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.

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. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Abdullah ibn Saba', you may be blocked from editing. You removed Sabaʾiyya movement with this edit. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Abdullah ibn Saba'#Sources stating he started the Shia sect

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Abdullah ibn Saba'#Sources stating he started the Shia sect. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Ka'ab al-Ahbar#Deletion of sourced information.

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ka'ab al-Ahbar#Deletion of sourced information.. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk pages

Just a heads up about this edit. Users can remove comments from their own Talk pages for just about any reason, and they do not have to respond to you. In addition, you should rarely or never revert/restore your own removed comments on someone else's Talk page. You can read more about that at WP:UP#OWN. I would suggest reverting yourself. If you have any questions, please ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the heads up. Just trying to engage a very disruptive editor who keeps adding unsourced information to an article and he is also following my edits is there anything I can do to keep him away from me? ShaniAli1lo (talk) 16:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article Talk discussions aren't going anywhere, you can take it to WP:RSN to see if a consensus develops around the sources, or WP:3O for outside opinions. Woodroar (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Jammu. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Edit summaries like "as expected Indian users showing their typical low grade mentality" are simply unacceptable. Woodroar (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Your wholesale attack on Wikipedia users of a particular nationality (and attack on a particular nation) in the edit summary here is enough to warrant a block in itself. Together with your obvious use of both an IP and this account to edit war on Jammu, it's even worse.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 18:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]