User talk:86.166.178.22

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Zaidiyyah into Imamah (Shia). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Assassins, you may be blocked from editing. Neil N  talk to me 23:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to History of Nizari Ismailism.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If Huggle automatically added this warning for an edit that could be verified as correct by simply clicking the wikilink then you really need to get a better tool. --Neil N  talk to me 00:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * NeilN - Huggle added the warning, but of course under my direction... I admit that I originally didn't think that this edit was legitimate.... as you can probably imagine, I revert vandalism all the time from people that try to "hoax" and disrupt in that manner; they'll add fragmented or broken sentences stating the person is dead, they'll try and append a death date (usually today's date or a date near today) to the an article summary paragraph and alongside the birthrate, and other equally annoying things that can make enforcing BLP a frustration. In this situation, I saw an edit that simply added " - died 2017" to the article - no references, any kind of other content, or even just something to help elaborate and add their changes smoothly. After seeing this exact kind of changes for so long, I guess I just allowed myself to quickly conclude this edit as just "another one like the others" and to conclude it a likely hoax - and typically I'd be correct.


 * But... as with anything in life (and many things Huggle), there's always that situation where my experience leads me astray, and I find myself looking like a moron to everybody. I mean, God damnit, I have to always run into the 1 in 1000 odds where the edit they made was legit... Thanks for pinging me about this situation and for letting me know that the edit that IP made was legitimate. I go through a lot of vandalism, but even myself... I'll mess something up and dun goof somewhere.... :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   00:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Haatim Zakiyuddin. Dl2000 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018
Hello, I'm UnsungKing123. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mufaddal Saifuddin have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. UnsungKing123 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mufaddal Saifuddin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. UnsungKing123 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.