User talk:Sarakhanjunglee

September 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Violence against Indians in Australia controversy has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Violence against Indians in Australia controversy was changed by Sarakhanjunglee (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.940758 on 2020-09-25T09:20:08+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Abdul Qadir Gilani has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Abdul Qadir Gilani was changed by Sarakhanjunglee (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.897572 on 2020-09-27T09:47:02+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Main Page. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Please read the note at the top of the Talk Page. You are posting in the wrong place. You have had various warnings on Wikipedia and if you continue in this way you will be blocked from editing. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mufti Menk

Hello. You do not appear familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In particular, Wikipedia requires citations to reliable and authoritative third-party sources. Two good sets of Wikipedia guidelines that I have found really useful can be found HERE, regarding verifiability and HERE, regarding the need to maintain a neutral point of view. In the meantime, please desist from trying to foist your views on others. Many thanks. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link from a secure website. But, it's okay. I understand. Sarakhanjunglee (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umm al-Kitab

Please note that disambiguation pages like Umm al-Kitab are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory

Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sarakhanjunglee (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic views on Jesus' death

Hello, I'm GenoV84. I noticed that you recently removed content from Islamic views on Jesus' death without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Islamic views on Jesus' death, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Hello! Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. At least one of your edits on the page Islamic views on Jesus' death, while it may have been in good faith, was difficult to distinguish from vandalism. To help other editors understand the reason for the changes, you can use an edit summary for your contributions. You can also take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. GenoV84 (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are Irani Shia. May Allah grant you the right manhaj Ameen. Sarakhanjunglee (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My ethnicity and religion is none of your concern. If you keep edit warring, I will report you. Take your concerns to the talk page, I've already created a section for you [1]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Austronesier (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Random addition of sources and inflammatory edit summaries by User:Sarakhanjunglee. Thank you. –Austronesier (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Fences&Windows 00:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

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).

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

Request reason:

Show me one edit where I have added an unsafe link, even I am trying to improve Wikipedia Sarakhanjunglee (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You aren't blocked for adding unsafe links. As far as I can tell, you're blocked for violating Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy badly enough to fall under these behaviors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bro please help me to get out of this. Sarakhanjunglee (talk) 09:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]