User talk:Xtremedood

Welcome!

Hello, Xtremedood, 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:

• 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

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 03:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hey, I noticed your extensive edits on various Persian Sufi-related articles. I am just wondering, are you at all possibly from Iran yourself? I am fascinated by much of Persian / Iranian culture, and I would like to learn more about it however I can. RezaFarhad (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shahab al-Din Abu Hafs Umar Suhrawardi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

DRN

There is a discussion on the DRN about the edits at Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Alaih-e-Salam. Please comment with your viewsFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hafez

I guess I removed a reference that should have stayed in Hafez. Sorry about that. I'd just like to remind you that it is customary to leave a brief edit summary before you save your edit. Happy editing! CorinneSD (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Battle articles being wrongly edited

are you okay or not Do you not know about battle of Sirhind,battle of sarsa etc. See fateh burj it commemorates the victory of Sikhs over sirhind and defeat of Mughal army .why you are editing inappropriate information  ? Are you a communal person you not even know history and you just keep editing false information. Check the sources then you will realize your mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak107839 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this user got blocked for disruptive editing. Seems the IP address is now doing the same thing to the same pages, I'm now watching those pages too, so will help remove these bad edits. Hopefully this craziness will go away. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Heads up; Ak107839 and Aradhyasharma are sockpuppets of indef blocked Amanharleen, which are all now indef blocked. Richard Harvey (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Battle of Purandar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mughal, Purandar and Jai Singh

Battle of Chaksana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mughal and Bharatpur

Battle of Khelna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mughal and Asad Khan

Battle of Lalsot (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mughal and Tunga

Battle of Raigarh (1689) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mughal and Rajaram

First Battle of Katwa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mughal and Hooghly

Siege of Gingee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Mughal and Rajaram

Battle of Bhupalgarh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

Battle of Burdwan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

Battle of Kalyan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

Battle of Satara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

Battle of Torna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

Second Battle of Katwa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

Siege of Jinji (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Warning

If you do not stop your vandalism now, you will be dragged to an administrator and your ip will be blocked. Ghatus (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully administration is wise enough to see the immense biases in the Maratha-related articles here. They are filled with little more than Hindutva propaganda. Xtremedood (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said, you are destroying the entire articles. Almost blanking the whole pages. Deleting all the references. Not improving at all. There is talk page. Discuss every point there. I am just undoing your blanking of Wiki pages.Ghatus (talk) 05:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not blanking. It is the removal of unsourced, biased, and incorrect materials, which happens to make up the majority of many of these articles. Xtremedood (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Favonian (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Saunshi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malabar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Invite

A Barnstar!

Please participate There's a voting going on here. It needs to close, but consensus is not certain. We need more participation. The issues can't remain without a resolution. Please, check it out. Closure of the discussion has started. (refresh) Please, hurry. 78.149.193.255 (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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

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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Kansas Bear, however I have reviewed the edits and I believe that I was only at 2 reverts (please correct me if I am wrong). I made my initial changes on April 11, at around 11:15-11:30. However the first revert was done by Ghatus, on 06:45, 13 April 2015‎. I reverted for the first time on 04:30, 13 April 2015‎ ‎ and the second time on 07:09, 13 April 2015‎, which makes for a total of two reverts. Ghatus on the other hand reverted 3 times (with me) and more with other users. Xtremedood (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Notification of WP:ARE

Don't forget to check WP:ARE. There is a complaint about you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the List of converts to Islam from Christianity page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Sarmad Kashani page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of converts to Islam from Christianity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Dutch, Portugese, Murat Reis and Ottoman

List of converts to Islam from Hinduism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Indian

List of former Buddhists (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Tibetan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of converts to Islam from Christianity page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

New

Excuse me sir. Good afternoon I want to say that you are editing irrelevant information about the Second Battle of Anandpur .I 'll suggest you to go through the article first . Shah439 (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Shah439, go to the talk page, I have set up a discussion where you may add any relevant information. If you have proof state it. What you are doing seemingly amounts to vandalism. Xtremedood (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Editing at Mirza Ghulam Ahmad". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 May 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 13:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of converts to Islam from Christianity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Irish and Scottish

Battle of Jalalabad (1710) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Jalal Khan

Battle of Jammu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Mughal

Dhul-Nun al-Misri (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Egyptian

Siege of Sirhind (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wazir Khan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Editing at Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Editing at Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• "4 Indians and 1 non-Indian", you have said it twice while none of those editors(maybe except 1) claims to be an Indian. Such remark can be considered as a personal attack. If you wouldn't retract that part from your comment, I would consider bringing the matter to either WP:ARE or WP:ANI. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Xtremedood, please do read WP:CANVASSING. Perhaps you can rectify the situation by notifying other editors to make a balanced collection as shows in the guidelines. Otherwise, the votes of the editors you have canvassed will be discounted. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

• You can check Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Xtremedood now. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 22:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Editing at Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of converts to Christianity from Islam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ottoman

Sufism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Britain

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Mughal–Maratha Wars

Please start a formal move request if you want to change the title of the page. Abecedare (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Your recent editing history at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism 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. Delibzr (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

May 8, 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor assuming he gets to vote in his own AfD nomination. Thank you. Pax 22:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Some assistance would be welcome if you can help.

Hi Xtremedood, I've been casting my eyes over the Khurram Zaki article and to be honest it's something of a mess at the moment, it reads like a CV with some news clippings appended and the sources are looking rather wobbly. Your assistance would be most welcome if you feel like helping to clean it up. Dolescum (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Some tips

Slow down a bit and marshal your arguments, perhaps even draft them in your sandbox or offline in Notepad/GEdit or whatever before posting on a talk page. Consider using the talk pages more and if after that you still feel you are correct but not getting your way then consider the options listed at dispute resolution. WP:RSN might also be useful on occasion. Ultimately, you have to accept consensus but there is rarely a reason to feel that you have been railroaded into doing so. You will be wrong some times; we all are.

More, don't edit war, don't make things personal, don't worry about things having to be right now - there is no deadline here, except "sort of" for BLPs and copyright issues. If it takes a week or a month to sort something out then that's how long it takes, and I've known situations where it has dragged on even longer than that.

Wikipedia needs people who appreciate the value of reliable sources and deprecate opinionated phrasing in articles etc. I think that you could be an asset to the project but you'll be no use to anyone if you are blocked. We lose too many new-ish contributors because they try to run before they can walk, they mean well but get wiki-lawyered out of town etc. This place is pretty weird at times and it takes many thousands of edits to really get a grip of how it works ... and even then there are surprises in store!

Good luck, although if you act sensibly then luck will not be required. - Sitush (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• There's a useful aphorism I haul out every now and then: that the nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes you're going to be on the losing side of the argument, and when you are, it's incumbent on you to lose gracefully and move on. I think you'd profit by keeping that in mind. Beyond that, while Sitush mentions wikilawyering, it seems that you're trying to do that yourself, and that what's in the forefront of your mind is how to batter people with arguments, how to push reverts and edit wars, anything just so long as you get your way.

  You're obviously editing in contentious areas, and that means you're going to run into people who are every as convinced that they are right, with well reasoned arguments and a command of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ... and who are firmly and passionately on the opposite side from you. Sometimes they're going to win, and sometimes they will have enough consensus on their side that there's no overturning in sight. That's when you lose gracefully and move on.

  Keep on like you're doing, though -- the convo below with Gorgevito is a prize example -- and I'd say the over-under on your permablock is a month flat. Nha Trang ^Allons! 14:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at List of converts to Islam from Hinduism

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at this AE complaint. Your edit was contrary to the warning I issued after the recent complaint at WP:AN3, that required you to get a talk page consensus before making any additional reverts. I take note that you've tried to improve the sourcing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Posted a notice to Delibrz on May 9th [1], no response for about 3 days. There was a consensus and I met it (see WP:consensus). I deleted all weak sources. You can look at my changes and its original. There was no mention of King Chakrawati Farmas, the dead link you mentioned was removed, and I deleted all reference to the 11 celebrities who converted to Islam source. Did you look at my edit? You should review what you stated, because I met the conditions. I clearly deleted Dharmendra, his wife, and Mahesh. All of the sources are verifiable. As I have previously stated, I posted a discussion on May 9th and nobody except Sitush responded. I adhered with the consensus that was present with him and I, so therefore I met consensus. It is not my fault if Delibrz did not answer. Xtremedood (talk) 04:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is a procedural decline; your block was only for 48 hours and has now expired. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

• AR Rahman never said that he was a Hindu before according to your reference[2] he only said that his mother was a Hindu and they also had pictures of Jesus in their home. It is known that he was an atheist.[3]
• These misleading rumor mills have no self confirmation,[4][5][6][7] that you use as reference, IMDB[8]?? You are printing rumors because you believe that every of these people converted to Islam, when they didn't. Are you going to say that Leonel Messi also converted to islam[9]?

Sitush had said to put only those names that can be also categorised per BLPCAT, you did just opposite by violating BLPs. User:EdJohnston, yes you had warned against reverting, but this new version is violating BLP and it can cause damage to wikipedia, should we go back to previous? Delibzr (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you look at my most recent edit? Here is a link to it.[10], compare it with the previous version [11]. Is there any mention of A.R. Rahman as a convert from Hinduism on the list? I can't see it. As I have stated, I removed pretty much all contested material, including A.R. Rahman. You were given approximately 3 days to respond, you did not, only Sitush did and the consenses between him and I, I acted upon(as well as what was stated on the Administrative board). You should have responded within this time, but you did not. Xtremedood (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood, it's hard to argue that you have a talk page consensus unless there is at least one person who agrees with you on the talk page. I do appreciate you tried to improve the sourcing, but you should have waited until your new version received support. When people fail to answer you, that doesn't provide a go-ahead. EdJohnston (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, It was an issue of what was contested and what was not contested. Delibrz contested some content on the article, his contested remarks may be seen here [12]. You yourself, contested some material on the article, what you contested may be seen here [13]. To sum up the contested materials are as followed: Delibrz had a problem with including A.R. Rahman and Dharmendra. I have deleted both of them off of the list. I have also deleted the source pertaining to a list of 11 celebrity converts.

You (EdJohnston) seemed to have issues with including King Chakrawati Farmas and deadlinks. I have deleted King Chakrawati Farmas and any deadlink I found. I posted on the talk page [14] informing Delibrz of engaging in proper discourse of the materials, and I waited for about 3 days and he did not respond. The only response was that of Sitush. Its not a matter of who agrees with me or not, since I did not dispute anything. I simply removed all contested materials. How does that violate any Wikipedia policy? Xtremedood (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious that User:Delibzr still disagrees with you. With Delibzr not in agreement and no other parties expressing an opinion on your proposed change, you don't have consensus. If there were a lot of commenters, Delibzr might possibly be outvoted, but that hasn't happened. EdJohnston (talk) 12:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston, this possibly demonstrates an immense neglect of proper understanding of the case at hand. It may also demonstrates a lack of due process, which is representative of an authoritarian and whimsical form of dispute resolution. First of all, Delibrz only responded after I made those changes and did not provide any content to try and remedy the issue [15]. Prior to that he did not respond. I waited for approximately 2-3 days and he made no comment. How does waiting for approximately 3 days constitute edit-warring? Second, how am I supposed to know whether or not Delibrz agreed or not, when he did not speak on the talk page, rather he went directly to you (without engaging in dialogue) and you (within about 20 minutes of his message) blocked me after I made those changes (and waited approximately 3 days). I removed from the article all that Delibrz had mentioned on the administrative board that he had an issue with. You seem to be telling me to do what is impractical, which is to force Delibrz to respond or to somehow know what he agrees with and does not agree with (without him telling me about it). How is it my fault that Delibrz did not respond in anyway for approximately 3 days? How is it my fault that he did not participate in the talk-page discussion? Also, what rule did I break for removing all disputed materials that have been mentioned on the administrative board and talk page? Can you tell me a single thing in my my recent edit on the article which was contested by Delibrz, you or anybody else, prior to Delibrz's recent message to you. You may see my changes here [16]? Xtremedood (talk) 18:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy that forces people to respond to you. Having just got over a complaint about your edits at WP:AN3, it would have been logical for you to proceed carefully and not immediately restore a lot of the disputed material. The intent of my warning was to force discussion. That implies that the two disputing parties talk to each other. The lapse of three days does not give you a license to revert. If you felt that Delibrz's response was overdue, you could have asked on his talk page, or pinged an administrator. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston,

"There is no policy that forces people to respond to you." - Great, so therefore my removal of contested materials was based on sound reasoning as I removed only what Delibrz had brought up and was in no position to assess what Delibrz opposed but did not bring up (which seems to be the idea of a Hindu converting to a Muslim, since he destroyed nearly all of the article including sources ones).

"The intent of my warning was to force discussion." - As you can see here,[17] I did indeed attempt try and engage in discussion, but Delibrz did not respond. Delibrz went directly to you, rather than engage in discussion, therefore he should be banned, not me based upon this reasoning.

"The lapse of three days does not give you a license to revert." - It was not a revision, as you can see the original here [18] and the new one here [19]. It was a removal of all contested materials that were brought up.

"If you felt that Delibrz's response was overdue, you could have asked on his talk page, or pinged an administrator." As stated above, I did inform him on the article's talk page. Can you provide a policy that requires the pinging of an administrator or direct communication on a personal talk page? According to my understanding, informing on the article's talk page should suffice.

Having unpopular edits, based on sound reasoning, should not be a justification for a block. An unpopular truth is still a truth. Xtremedood (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you know how hypocritical you sound, given how much information you have removed on similar grounds on the List of converts to Hinduism from Islam page? At the least, if you truly deemed it problematic, you should have tried to broach the issue on the article's discussion page before making such major and unilateral changes, given the inevitably sensitive nature of such topics, which you did not do; even if some of the sources were dead links, you should have at most removed the references and added a citation needed tag instead of removing the persons completely. Before you edited the article in question, it had twenty-two named converts, now it is down to seven. Please, what exactly are you trying to prove here? Gorgevito (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Your contributions display an immense focus on my work. Your account was created on May 7th and as of now, your contributions seem to have been all related to me in some way. Even your userpage has my simple "Hello" on it. You should find something better to do with the time you have. Also, those changes are not in anyway hypocritical. If you wish to contest anything, go ahead. I am open to dialogue. My reasons are stated in the history. Once again, I stand for truth, no matter how unpopular it may be to you or anybody else. Xtremedood (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

But what exactly is this unpopular 'truth' that you have repeatedly referred to? The vast majority of your contributions thus far have been very slanted towards a distinctly pro-Islamic perspective (almost as if trying to actively promote the perception that Hindus and Sikhs failed to win a single conflict against the Mughals and glorifying the latter's history at the expense of the former), with a very thinly veiled nationalistic air in some of your edits. If you are truly striving to be objective or constructive at all times, I for one cannot see it. You have said more than once that Wikipedia is biased against Muslims, but I think it is no more biased than you are towards other beliefs. But please, address the issue I raised, why exactly did you remove almost 70% of the Muslim to Hindu conversion article within a matter of minutes? You should have at least opened some basic discussion on the talk page beforehand, especially when it comes to the quality of relevant sources. Gorgevito (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not the proper place to bring this up. Also, certain things you say may constitute WP:Personal Attack. My edits are based on proper sourcing. You said " almost as if trying to actively promote the perception that Hindus and Sikhs failed to win a single conflict against the Mughals and glorifying the latter's history at the expense of the former" <--- Show me where I did this. Proof is required, not baseless accusations. Also, you said "You have said more than once that Wikipedia is biased against Muslims" <--- Show me one place where I said this. Xtremedood (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to List of converts to Hinduism from Islam

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from List of converts to Hinduism from Islam without 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; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please 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. Thank you! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

DemocraticLuntz, I did explain, see edit summaries. Xtremedood (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Battles involving the Maratha Empire page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Problem with your use of sources at Zheng He to prove he was a devout Muslim

You used John Guy as a source, stating that it proved that Zheng He was a devout Muslim. Guy says nothing of the kind. In fact, you left out the bit about Zheng He seeking the protection of the Divine Woman, which is a Buddhist concept. You also ignored the fact that someone whose religious views are syncretic might well worship at the shrines of a number of religions. Looking at some of the comments above, I'm wondering if you can edit objectively on Islamic related articles. Doug Weller (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Doug Weller, The statement of "Tianfei" is already mentioned. To state that it is the dominant religion he adhered to is not objective but a subjective conclusion by Edward Dreyer. Materials pertaining to his identity as a Muslim should not be ignored. You deleted the sourced reference to his visit to Quanzhou, where the author clearly states that he was attracted to the city because of two Muslim saints. This speaks for itself as a reference to his devotion as a Muslim. Wonder away as much as you can. Xtremedood (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I deleted that because it was included in the quote I added, did you not see that it says "as well as at the tombs of the Muslim saints on Lingshan Hill, above the city of Quanzhou" It seems obvious that it doesn't belong there twice. You seem to be saying that he was a devout Muslim who also followed other religious traditions, which seems to be a contradiction in terms. The statement about "dominant religion" is now clearly attributed, so seems to adhere to our guidelines. Your edit that said " thus showing he was a devout Muslim throughout his life" was written as though sourced to Guy, the author who said that he also sought protection from the Divine Woman. Tell me, is that what Guy said or is that your interpretation? Doug Weller (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, no reply, I'll assume that was your interpretation, ie original research. Doug Weller (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Siege of Badami

Hello Xtremedood. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Siege of Badami, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Appears to exist as per references. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Steven Zhang, I have checked the references. They do not make a note of a Siege of Badami. It is invented and with false references. Xtremedood (talk) 11:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I spotted this reference [20]. It's enough for me to believe it actually does exist. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Battle of Kup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kup

Persecution of Muslims (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Samana

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

DS alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 --Human  11:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

comment on Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, don't do edit war.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. 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 lose editing privileges. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Human3015 (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sardar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjabi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sikh battles

Hi, I'm a bit mystified re: why you are creating articles such as Battle of Gurdas Nangal, Battle of Jammu etc. Are they capable of being expanded? If not, why don't we just collate the lot in one article for the war? A similar situation has been going on with a long-term sock who frequents Mughal articles and it really does seem to be rather pointless. - Sitush (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

3rr notice

Your recent editing history at Punjab region 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. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  06:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Edit Warring

Hello user, currently one discussion going here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Xtremedood reported by User:Human3015 (Result: ) in which you may have been involved. So kindly come to said board and take part in discussion if you wish. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  00:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A note

They feel now that your trying to expose the truth about Salafis. So they are making sure key points are removed. They use wikipedia as a preaching tool. Guwahaticit (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Please do not post menacing messages on other users' talk pages, as you did on 13 August 2015. Using your IP to do this fools no-one.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive about ownership of articles, which you showed at Salafi movement. The next time you continue to disruptively edit Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Sandbox

I took a look at your sandbox. Regarding Salafi Movement introduction. I have a source you might need starting @ p.151 [21] Misdemenor (talk) 09:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, however I have noticed your statement on the Talk:Salafi movement page, which states "There's a few choices you can ignore them and potentially die in a state of kufr or you can revert back to Islam". This does nothing to better the situation, it is responding to the biased statements of others, with your own reactionary rhetoric. I would recommend that you have a cooler and more academic online demeanor. Clearly I am in a minority, which means that it is better to try and solve the issue in the DRN, since the discussion has already gone way out of hand. Xtremedood (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I dont want to be your friend. I gave you a source which you can add if you like. So dont accuse me of having multiple accounts etc. If you personally attack me again I will report you. Misdemenor (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you. Sorry if you feel that way, but it was not what I said. A question does not equal an accusation. It's just that the other guys account is fairly new. Xtremedood (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Dear brother, we can edit Wiki, will send you some material.Thanks.Please tell your email IDSufifriends (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this the same user as user:Misdemenor? If so, I would strongly recommend against using multiple accounts on dealing with the same or similar issues. Refer to Wikipedia's policies pertaining to multiple account usage and sockpuppetry. I would strongly urge you to let go of rhetoric, which you have posted on your user page, which really could harm your chances on making any positive change on Wikipedia. I would also recommend that you adopt a more academic tone in your language. Sources are important. Do not respond to sensationalist rhetoric with your own sensationalist rhetoric. Wikipedia is no the place for this. Xtremedood (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Im not user:Misdemenor and I have seen your contributions therefore I contacted you. Please dont take me wrong we can help improve this wikipedia on many aspects. Sufifriends (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Xtremedood, if you're worried about someone harassing you (particularly a new user), don't provide them with your email. If they're genuine and want to pass on some material (PDFs, etc.), they can always use Dropbox.com or some other publicly accessible cloud storage facility and provide you with the url for downloading said content.

Aside from that, the user can email you from the link on the left hand menu, in which case they will be revealing their email, but yours won't be revealed unless you respond. Better play it safe than be sorry. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Where did I give anybody my email? I didn't provide anybody on Wikipedia my email. Xtremedood (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for the misunderstanding. If the user has an account, they can email you through the "Email this user" link in the "Tools" menu on the left. Such emails are not direct links to your personal info, nor do they violate your privacy in any way. Such 'email' correspondence is forwarded via Wikipedia, and is tracked by Wikipedia should someone be using the system to harass you (i.e., this is not a direct email to email form of correspondence). I believe this feature can be switched off in your preferences, but I've never actually done this myself. Please feel free to ask me for more assistance if needed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Attar, Top of Page Image

I object to the replacement of a painted picture of Attar with a photo of a plaque. Before I revert it, I'd like to read your rationale. Regards Tapered (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

I object to the previous painting. I did not find a proper source for it. The statue, however, stands outside his mausoleum in Nishapur and is probably better suited than a source-less painting. Xtremedood (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Jammu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounding and mass disruptive editing

Don't remove the content that you don't like,[22][23] by calling reliable sources "unreliable".[24] Source[25] actually supported the material, and you claimed that it is not supporting it.

Your page has many warnings from @Iryna Harpy, Toddy1, and Human3015: and elsewhere you have been warned enough by @MezzoMezzo and GorgeCustersSabre: and others.

Kindly stop WP:GAMING like you have been also doing at [26][27] and stop WP:WIKIHOUNDING my edits,[28][29] especially when it only worsens encyclopedia. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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; 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

D4iNa4 and Bladesmulti

Hello Xtremehood. Thanks for mentioning my name in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I doubt that both of these editors are sock puppet of each other. They both are using the same style of language. See [30] and [31]. My intuition says that both of these users are same. While one one of them (Bladesmulti) is already a sockpuppet. So I think that they both are sock puppets. Terabar (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Terabar, I have seen Bladesmulti removing stuff on this article Criticism of Hinduism. If you look back the article was much longer, now it is very small compared to other criticism pages. Xtremedood (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Terabar, I have started a sockpuppet investigation here [32]. Xtremedood (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battles involving the Maratha Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malabar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

SPI

Can you look at the SPI you started. And hopefully explain the weird user compare result to me please. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Madhubala page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Rape statistics page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Praise and Veneration of Muhammad

Hi, I'm Ueutyi. Xtremedood, thanks for creating Praise and Veneration of Muhammad!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Great effort!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Ueutyi (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ueutyi, I have added categories. I appreciate the advice. Xtremedood (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, you are actually the first person to reply to my messages. Ueutyi (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Praise and Veneration of Muhammad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Sama, Saadi, Andalusian and Shirk

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note that I've ineffed your other accounts as well as the disclosed account Xtremedood2. Once your block expires you must adhere to a single account only. In addition, making logged out controversial edits as you have done will not be tolerated and must stop immediately.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I never used multiple accounts inappropriately. user:xtremedood2 was simply so I could use the sandbox and I was under the impression that using it would not in anyway violate any multiple account policies. I similarly did it with user:xtremdood3. I did NOT use these accounts for any controversial edits and I did not use them to edit any articles, only sandbox. I have never made a controversial edit using multiple accounts. This is unjust and whimsical, and under no basis is it justified. I did however make a recent edit on the 'Praise and veneration of Muhammad article, because I was editing while logged out. This was totally by accident and it was because I forgot I was not logged in. Read the following from here [33], "There is no policy against editing while logged out. This happens for many reasons, including not noticing that the login session had expired, changing computers, going to a Wikipedia page directly from a link, and forgetting passwords. Editors who are not logged in must not actively try to deceive other editors, such as by directly saying that they do not have an account or by using the session for the inappropriate uses of alternate accounts listed earlier in this policy. To protect their privacy, editors who are editing while logged out are never required to disclose their usernames on-wiki.". I have not violated any wikipedia policies and this block is unjustified, nor was I required to expose my IP to the world, however now I am. Xtremedood (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per Ponyo. If you want to avoid being blocked in the future, try editing with a single account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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.

• Your explanation does not mention the clear socking using Calm321 and Greentea555.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's because you never brought it up. user:Calm321 is not used by me, it is used by my roommate. Nor are the edits for user:Calm321 overlapping for them, I helped him in learning how to edit, however he barely uses it. Can you explain how and why user:Calm321's activities have anything to do with my own? They are totally unrelated and we edit completely different articles. Most of his edits have to do with Mia Khalifa, which is totally unrelated to the materials I do, since I am not interested in pornography. I did, however help him in teaching him how to upload images, which I did for the flags. user:Greentea55 is my account, which I used for a completely unrelated topic, which is allowed. I did not want to mix my activities pertaining to China with my religious/muslim activities. Can you tell me how or in what way either of these accounts (assuming both of them are mine, which only one is) violates any of these rules stated here [34]? Xtremedood (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I did link to the Calm and Greentea accounts in my message below your block notice. The Calm account edited the same topics as you, using the same arguments bias. You were editing interchangeably between the accounts, at times within minutes. Even if you are two distinct accounts (which I find unlikely), WP:SHARE applies. The Greentea account, which was operated by you without disclosure, was used to edit war at a controversial topic completely related to your main editing interest. You also used the account to leave messages on various users talk pages where you present yourself as an unknowing user (such as here) and continue the same arguments of bias and propaganda you make under your main account . This gives all appearances of socking to avoid detection and absolutely contravenes WP:SOCK. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:11, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

pinging User:Ohnoitsjamie, and @User:Ponyo, once again you did not provide any reference to any of the rules that I allegedly broke. You claim that this edit [35] of Calm's contains the same argument bias, however, that is not indicative of anything since bias may be found all over the site and claiming something is biased is very common. Second, since I did not edit that page there is no relevance in bringing that up. Throwing mud at the wall and hoping it sticks is not a valid excuse. I did not make any edits on that article that you have referenced, which you can see here [36]. As for being interested in the same topics, that is very limited. Very few of Calm's articles are related to the topic. Not to mention that it seems like you are trying very hard to find a connection that is simply not there. Is this possibly because I maintain unpopular views which some members believe should be censored?

As for the user:Greentea555, I have admitted that it was my account, however, I did not see it breaking any of the rules stated here [37]. I was simply using that account as per what is stated here [38], under privacy, which states "Privacy: A person editing an article which is highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other Wikipedia actions in that area.". I needed this privacy because I was threatened online by Indian users. You can see it here [39]. Since my family and mother was physically threatened, I felt concerned and it was a very traumatic thing to read and as you can see I haven't edited many India-related articles since. I felt that I had to hide my identity for personal safety concerns. Also, see here [40] and here [41]. After I opened some investigations about OccultZone, I was threatened, see here [42]. Clearly the safety of myself and my family comes over multiple accounts creation on Wikipedia, and I am not one to be easily silenced over such vulgar threats. Xtremedood (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Your account has been disruptive from the get-go. You used undisclosed accounts to edit disruptively in the same topic areas in violation of WP:SOCK. You can attempt to twist the facts to make it appear you were editing within the bounds of WP:LEGIT but you were not. You are welcome to post another unblock request to see if anyone is buying what you are selling, but do not continue to ping me here, I have nothing further to add. I reiterate that you must not continue to create additional undisclosed accounts once the unblock expires; as you don't appear to understand the policy governing their use you cannot be trusted to use them appropriately.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)