It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Muhammad. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gwernol 21:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Muhammad, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 02:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"Funnypop12," I recommend you stop. Proabivouac 05:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you
vandalize a page, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Frotz661 07:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Removing picture from Muhammad article is NOT Vandalism. It is very disputed to put Muhammad pictures in that article and very disputed to do that. Those who are putting back the picture are equal vandal as those who are removing it. --- ALM 14:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your removing of those pics. These are aligned with the policy of wikipedia and had been massively discussed over and over again on Muhammad talk page. However, please use edit summaries properly and also beware of WP:3RR violation. Those who are putting back the pics are doing the same kind of act as those who are removing them because there is no consensus in each side. I was part of mediation on the pics on Muhammad article but our mediator retired in the middle of mediation. We will start a new mediation soon and I will invite you to contribute and give your view. Btw welcome in wikipedia and continue contributing in such a good way. --- ALM 14:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Please answer your logic on Muhammad talk page Here. Thank you. --- ALM 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled " Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, as you did to Muhammad, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Strothra 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[ [3]] You will be block soon. I think it is better idea to talk with others instead of reverting without talking. You might have right point of view but no one will know about it until you will talk to others. Hence two golden rules 1) Talk to others 2) use edit summaries. --- ALM 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 48 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Sandstein 08:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Funnypop12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have always added good information to this article. And i have been editing Muhammad article for so long. I just deleted some not authentic and disputed images. Please unblock me so i can add good information and discuss matters so that i can contribute to this article. I hope you put off that 48 hours block.Thank you
Decline reason:
I agree with Proabivouac's analysis that your edits were not in line with any sort of discussion you had, I see a long history of such edits in your contributions, please work with the community in the future. — HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
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.
thats unfair. Very unfair Funnypop12 11:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I wish that this matter be handled by some neutral admin that is not involved in pushing picture on the top of page. Secondly, if he is a socket puppet then do ban him for indef. However, if he is not a socket puppet then ban one who is accusing him ( User:Proabivouac). Just like admin blocking you in non-neutral (supporting picture and banning you) and so is the one who is admin listening to Proabivouac. I know that the admin even has not warn Mr. Proabivouac for making personal attacks against you. Here is what I have copied from your user page (which is surely a Vandalism and personal attack but not warned.)
If you blank the pictures against consensus again as you did here [4] it will be grounds for blocking. You have been warned about this in the past. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've indefinitely blocked this account because you've moved on to User:Ramzk001 by all evidence - there's no legitimate reason why you should have (at least) three accounts to do the same thing. You can reply here if you want to contest this, I'll take a look. Cheers, Wily D 13:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Muhammad. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Gwernol 21:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to blank or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Muhammad, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gwernol 02:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
"Funnypop12," I recommend you stop. Proabivouac 05:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
This is your last warning.
The next time you
vandalize a page, you will be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Frotz661 07:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Removing picture from Muhammad article is NOT Vandalism. It is very disputed to put Muhammad pictures in that article and very disputed to do that. Those who are putting back the picture are equal vandal as those who are removing it. --- ALM 14:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your removing of those pics. These are aligned with the policy of wikipedia and had been massively discussed over and over again on Muhammad talk page. However, please use edit summaries properly and also beware of WP:3RR violation. Those who are putting back the pics are doing the same kind of act as those who are removing them because there is no consensus in each side. I was part of mediation on the pics on Muhammad article but our mediator retired in the middle of mediation. We will start a new mediation soon and I will invite you to contribute and give your view. Btw welcome in wikipedia and continue contributing in such a good way. --- ALM 14:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Please answer your logic on Muhammad talk page Here. Thank you. --- ALM 18:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled " Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:
The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. — Nearly Headless Nick 11:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to remove content from pages, as you did to Muhammad, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Strothra 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[ [3]] You will be block soon. I think it is better idea to talk with others instead of reverting without talking. You might have right point of view but no one will know about it until you will talk to others. Hence two golden rules 1) Talk to others 2) use edit summaries. --- ALM 18:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 48 hours as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. Sandstein 08:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Funnypop12 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I have always added good information to this article. And i have been editing Muhammad article for so long. I just deleted some not authentic and disputed images. Please unblock me so i can add good information and discuss matters so that i can contribute to this article. I hope you put off that 48 hours block.Thank you
Decline reason:
I agree with Proabivouac's analysis that your edits were not in line with any sort of discussion you had, I see a long history of such edits in your contributions, please work with the community in the future. — HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
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.
thats unfair. Very unfair Funnypop12 11:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I wish that this matter be handled by some neutral admin that is not involved in pushing picture on the top of page. Secondly, if he is a socket puppet then do ban him for indef. However, if he is not a socket puppet then ban one who is accusing him ( User:Proabivouac). Just like admin blocking you in non-neutral (supporting picture and banning you) and so is the one who is admin listening to Proabivouac. I know that the admin even has not warn Mr. Proabivouac for making personal attacks against you. Here is what I have copied from your user page (which is surely a Vandalism and personal attack but not warned.)
If you blank the pictures against consensus again as you did here [4] it will be grounds for blocking. You have been warned about this in the past. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up ® 17:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've indefinitely blocked this account because you've moved on to User:Ramzk001 by all evidence - there's no legitimate reason why you should have (at least) three accounts to do the same thing. You can reply here if you want to contest this, I'll take a look. Cheers, Wily D 13:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)