User talk:Trymankind

September 2015[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Abrahamic religions 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: Abrahamic religions was changed by Trymankind (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.905728 on 2015-09-21T08:47:10+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trymankind, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Trymankind! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015[edit]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Abrahamic religions and Course (education). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view and no original research policies and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Zakat. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You cannot just link to a random website to support your claims. The website must actually state what you're trying to add, and the site must be a reliable source. Blogs and other personal writing sites are not deemed reliable. —C.Fred (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran, Bible, and other holy books are primary sources and should not be cited in articles, other than when a passage is directly quoted. They may not be used to support interpretations. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Zakat.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Zakat was changed by Trymankind (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.867943 on 2015-09-24T01:53:01+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:KahnJohn27. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history at Allah 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. DeCausa (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]