User talk:Theone9988

Extended content

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Organometalic1 (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful.

Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

July 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wahhabi. When removing content, 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 content 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. Sakimonk (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wahabi is a religion founded by the wahabi leaders, it has its own rules, beliefs, laws and leaders. For one to say that Wahabism is a Sunni sect, or a form of the Sunni sect is blatantly ignorant. I have provided why I removed the content on this issue, so don't assume or declare that I have not. Regards. Theone9988.

I am afraid this is your own ill informed extremist view that is not in line with NPOV held at Wikipedia. Please kindly take your soapboxing elsewhere. Sakimonk (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not my own view, it is factual information based on historic accounts and a consensus amongst the majority of Muslim followers. The Wahabi religion was founded by Abd-Al-Wahab, who, in Saudi History, came into power by the extremist actions of his followers. His religion, Wahabism, was fought and defeated by the Sunni majority long after. Even his spiritual leader, Ib taymiyah, was jailed by the Sunni leaders for his blatant refusal to acknowledge true facts in Sunni Islam. He died in jail, in Syria, and was burried amongst the non-muslims therein. The history is all there, you should read and learn it before making such ridiculous claims and spreading such evil lies. Theone998 (talk) 05:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - Rev Warring is Unacceptable

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as seen in Wahhabi, you may be blocked from editing. Please note that if you wish to bring this topic up for discussion then please flag this on the article talk page, if you revert once more then this is a third offense and you will be put forward for Rev Warring. Sakimonk (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Wahhabi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. If it is as you say then you should have no problems in finding sources to back you up. I added a source that indicates they are a branch of Sunni Islam. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Hi there Theone9988, since you chose to ignore all these warnings and continue to edit war, I have removed your editing priviliges for the next 24 hours. When the block has expired, please discuss your issues on the article talk page and get consensus for your proposed changes. You will need to present some reliable sources which support your view, you can't just keep insisting you are right and everyone else is wrong. Thanks & regards! Franamax (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wahhabi

You are blocked for edit warring and return to the exact same edit that got you blocked. However it is now obvious that you are just a reincarnation of the previously blocked Organometalic1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've indefinitely blocked this account as well. Until you are willing to request unblocking and discuss issues on article talk pages, we will continue to revert your edits and block your accounts. So I'm not sure exactly why you would continue doing this, but whatever... Franamax (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom unblock appeal

The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the appeal of Wikitruths3 (talk · contribs) and has declined to unblock that account and related accounts either known or discovered during the investigation. After six months of not editing Wikipedia under any account including IP accounts the user may again apply to have the block reviewed.

For the Arbitration Committee SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]