User talk:Bill gates009

Welcome!
Hello, Bill gates009, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! --Toddy1 (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

June 2013
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one of your recent edits to Ja'far al-Sadiq 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: Ja'far al-Sadiq was changed by Bill gates009 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.940915 on 2013-06-25T12:56:02+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm WikiDan61. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ja'far al-Sadiq without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the 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! WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ja'far al-Sadiq, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

August 2014
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Hadith of the pen and paper. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.Edward321 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Battle of Uhud, you may be blocked from editing. Edward321 (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It was not appropriate for you to refer to this edit as vandalism in your edit summary. Please read WP:NOT VANDALISM.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to use the article talk page to explain your edits to Hadith of the pen and paper. You can find the article talk page at Talk:Hadith of the pen and paper. If you do not use the article talk page, your edits will be reverted indefinitely.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Hadith of the pen and paper. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Please could you use the article talk page to explain your edits to the article on the Hadith of the pen and paper.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Hadith of the pen and paper. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Edward321 (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop editing the article on the Hadith of the pen and paper and start using Talk:Hadith of the pen and paper to explain your proposed changes.

Some of what you are trying to do is probably for the best, but you are going about it the wrong way, and making mistakes as you do it. Please let me give you some pointers:
 * The article needs to be formatted in the standard style for Wikipedia. Novel formatting concepts such as your "decorated quotes" are not wanted.
 * The article need proper citations to reliable sources.
 * That means that you need to cover URLs. Leaving bare URLs lead to "link rot".  If the URLs are covered, link rot can be fixed, or at least lived with.
 * That means no blogs as sources.
 * That means that if you quote religious primary sources such as Hadith, you need to provide secondary sources to back up the inferences drawn from them. Uncited inferences are are called "original research".
 * The article needs to be balanced. Writing the article so that it is dominated by a huge section on the minority Shia POV is hard to justify.

You must use the article talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Hadith of the pen and paper. 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 the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)