Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did to
2013 Woolwich beheading. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Giant
Snowman
20:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Salimfadhley. Rembrandt Peale, thanks for creating Beheading in the name of Islam!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It might be worth including some islamic perspectives regarding the acceptable use of beheading.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Standalone articles on a facet of a religion tends to be difficult to establish. Sometimes when a large article needs to be shorten, a section may be broken off and put into a standalone article. But creating an article from scratch is more demanding. If your article doesn't survive the afd process, you may want to insert an abridged section into the Decapitation article. This brings editors with experience in the topic to the task of reviewing and contributing to the topic. If the article survives the afd process, you might want to add a section to the Decapitation article anyway. Jason from nyc ( talk) 16:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beheading in the name of Islam 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/Beheading in the name of Islam until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Martin451 ( talk) 22:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historicist nableezy - 16:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
EternalFloette (
talk)
16:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |
Please stop adding
unsourced content, as you did to
2013 Woolwich beheading. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on
verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Giant
Snowman
20:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Salimfadhley. Rembrandt Peale, thanks for creating Beheading in the name of Islam!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It might be worth including some islamic perspectives regarding the acceptable use of beheading.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Salimfadhley ( talk) 22:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Standalone articles on a facet of a religion tends to be difficult to establish. Sometimes when a large article needs to be shorten, a section may be broken off and put into a standalone article. But creating an article from scratch is more demanding. If your article doesn't survive the afd process, you may want to insert an abridged section into the Decapitation article. This brings editors with experience in the topic to the task of reviewing and contributing to the topic. If the article survives the afd process, you might want to add a section to the Decapitation article anyway. Jason from nyc ( talk) 16:41, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beheading in the name of Islam 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/Beheading in the name of Islam until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Martin451 ( talk) 22:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historicist nableezy - 16:11, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
EternalFloette (
talk)
16:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC) |