User talk:FreeatlastChitchat

This is my talk page, aka my home. The most recent attempts by disgruntled editors to get me blocked, along with my block for removing POV from the hate page Rape Jihad will be found here.
So if you are here cuz you are angry at me, my advice is relax! chill! Have a glass of water and pour your heart out to me before going to ANI/SPI/etc.
Just start a new section (tab is at the top right here) write what got you so angry, use as much profanity as you want(I won't mind, and won't report you) and get the catharsis going. I will reply to your comments here and ping to it.

Using Profanity in Warnings

Please refrain from vandalizing my talk page with inflammatory statements, such as:

"It is laughable and kinda hilarious that you can think, even for a second that you will be able to get away with shit like this. Like a 3 foot midget thinking he can beat up Mohammad Ali (You are the midget in this analogy and wikipedia with its editors is Mohhamd ali). Hehehehhehehehe FreeatlastChitchat"

24.17.106.104 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, and for other disruptive editing, including misrepresentation of sources and misrepresentation of what your own edits are doing. For example, in the edit summarry to this edit, you wrote "putting in a neutral tone", but no reasonable person could possibly view what you wrote as neutral. ("A neutral tone" does not mean "a tone which strongly indicates a view which I believe is the right view".) Also, you gave no source whatever to support the claim you made in that edit, despite repeatedly removing other editors' contributions on the ground that you think their sources are inadequate. Again, in the edit summary to this edit you wrote "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given", despite the fact that the exact words "Rape Jihad" feature both in the title of one of the sources and in the body of its text. Please note that this block is not based on any judgement or opinion regarding your views on the content of the article: it is based on the methods you have been using. Edit warring, misrepresentation, and other disruptive practices are unacceptable, no matter how justifiable or unjustifiable are the ends that those practices are used to achieve. 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 ~~~~}}.  The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:31, 9 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Perhaps an admin can look at this ANI thread. I have detailed at length what at rationale for removal was. Also the first edit I made was changed and I did not revert that, how is that edit warring? IF you require I can copy paste that here. BTW I just want to ask why I have been blocked without anyone warning me or telling me about any ongoing thread against me? I see that one of the reasons about my block is "Also, you gave no source whatever to support the claim you made in that edit, despite repeatedly removing other editors' contributions on the ground that you think their sources are inadequate." So I would dare to ask was consensus established at these nine (•RSN: 1 2 3 4 5 6 •NPOVN: 7 •TP: 8 9) places 'wrong'? I mean how much more consensus should there be about removal before the content is actually removed without getting blocked? Also another reason given is "Again, in the edit summary to this edit you wrote "No mention of rape jihad Anywhere in the sources given", despite the fact that the exact words "Rape Jihad" feature both in the title of one of the sources and in the body of its text." Well why doesn't someone read the article and then look at this policy quote from WP:NEO 'To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.' Where does the article describe the practice? where does it mention it except in the title and then just a passing mention at the start? The entire article talks about slavery in 21st century Islamism. Even a blind man can see that. So allow me to ask why I have been blocked when I have been acting in accordance with consensus and Wikipedia policies. If all this is not enough then an admin should take a look at the Rape Jihad talk page. If the said admin still thinks that my adding the words "Ultra right wing, conservative and Islamophobic", along with my removal of content was grounds for a block, he should feel free to siteban me permanently, for what is the use of editing wikipedia when you are going to get blocked even when doing the right thing according to policies. Am I allowed to ping an admin here? It has been more than 12 hours (16 now) (22 now) since the block was placed, it takes less than 15 minutes to read through everything I posted and the material at ANI/TP. I hope an admin can spare that time. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your request only further demonstrates that you do not understand our WP:NPOV policy. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:49, 10 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.

'The article in question was Deleted and salted as it was a hate page, thank God some people can see without POV glasses'

You should know discretionary sanctions

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.

--Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  07:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

3rr

Your recent editing history at 2014–15 India–Pakistan border skirmishes 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}  07:15, 15 August 2015 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Human3015 (Result: ). Thank you. Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  07:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC) 'request was Withdrawn by nom'

3rr

Your recent editing history at Siachen Glacier 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}  03:35, 18 August 2015 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Human3015 (Result: ). Thank you. Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  03:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC) 'And the result of this report by human is the following comment by SWARM'

Page protected for one week. Human, looking at the discussion, you seem to be misrepresenting the situation. The previous RfC did yield a consensus "that in some way the infobox should recognise the region is disputed". You're reverting based on claims that "there is "no consesnus" to add it to infobox" and that he should "let the ongoing RfC on same issue be closed". On its face this seems to be nothing less than a flagrant misrepresentation of the situation, as the current RfC is a follow up to determine how exactly the infobox should say it, not on whether it can be added to begin with. Furthermore, your argument that AlbinoFerret's RfC close is somehow invalid because he's not an administrator and/or because he interpreted a "rough consensus". This is simply wrong. As an uninvolved editor in good standing, he was completely and entirely within his rights to close the RfC, and misrepresenting consensus in an edit war is nothing short of disruptive. Yes, WP:BRD is the appropriate means of going about having one's edit reverted, but I honestly can't see any legitimate reasoning being given for the revert aside from a false procedural concern. I'm not sure what you're doing Human, but stop. Let me further clarify, since you apparently aren't particularly deterred by the threat of a block (based on your above comment): yes, your opponents may absolutely be blocked alongside you in some of these situations, but given your prior and current incidents of edit warring it's difficult not to see a problematic behavioral pattern on your part, and the next block you receive will be substantially lengthier, especially given the leniency I've opted for regarding these last two reports. Stop edit warring. Last warning from me before the consequences start getting serious. Swarm ♠ 06:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm Human3015. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Hafiz Muhammad Saeed that didn't seem very civil, and it should be removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  08:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have read this but I still stand by what I wrote. You should stop discussing me, my country and my emotional state and start discussing the article. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 'The resulting report from Human failed to get the result he desired, boomerang happened'

3RR

Your recent editing history at Pakistan 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}  10:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Consider your notice delivered. I'll 'LOVE' to take this to ANI. please please report me and lets get the ball rolling. You have been hounding me for the past 5/6 hours so lets get this underway. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2015 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Human3015 (Result: ). Thank you. Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  10:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC) 'Again a failed attempt'

Stop removing sourced content because you disagree with the POV

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.Sakimonk ^talk 17:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you can improve Wikipedia just have some patience and control. Best of Luck. ScholarM (talk) 17:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 'Another failed attempt, I think I was the subject of 4/10 discussions on ANI at this point'

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizan, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

'case closed as there was no proof, it was refreshing to see that instead of ANI report an SPI was launched'

A beer for you!

I cracked a couple of ribs too. Cheers. Faizan (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Discussion involving you is going on WP:ANI HERE. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 'Human got lambasted for his own conduct at the report thread'

Stop vandalizing the G.A Parwez page !

I can see you have a lot of edit warnings from moderators and are involved in multiple investigations already. If you want to engage in an edit war, given your history, that will not end well for you. If you persist, I will also be forced to create a new case against you on the administration board. Code16 (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

@Code16 Let the reporting begin. I don't engage in edit wars. 90% of the people who report me do so for the sole reason that they dont like my edits. If you don't like my edits feel free to report me @ ANI FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

They probably don't like your edits because you're vandalizing pages. And yes, I will be reporting you. Code16 (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Code16 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

And this report of so called vandalism ended with multiple editors telling Code16 that he was wrong and my edits were according to policy. Code16 then went away saying '@ AlbinoFerret Will do, and I'll also insert additional sources. Code16 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)'

Reverting to Justice007's version on G.A. Parwez

The matter is being discussed on the admin board. Refrain from edits until it is resolved. Present your case there. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Code16 (talk) 16:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@This is not an "incident", this is a content dispute, and therefore not eligible to be reported. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This USER , CODE16, however went ahead and posted this on the ANI, he was then told by five other users that he was wrong, he still did not listen and after it became clear to him that he could not add his promotional stuff into the article he started to vandalize all articles that I had worked on. He is now blocked from wikipedia.

3rr

Your recent editing history at Ordinance XX 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}  06:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@User:Human3015 your current activity shows that you have not even read the article in question. You wanted a Source, I have put in UNHCR. Your incompetence is amazing. Now stop bothering me, or I may something harsh and you will start crying. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ceasefire

Hi, I want ceasefire with you. Enough is enough. Lets contribute to Wikipedia in positive way. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  07:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I have really came to Wikipedia to create new articles and to edit stub pages. It is becoming worst now. Lets stop ourselves. I am also interested in Pakistan related tourism topics, want to develop it. Please be co-operative. I'm not enemy of Pakistan. I can show you my "n" number of positive contribution to Pakistan related topics. Even recently created song article itself a song of Pakistani singer. Please assume good faith. Lets stop all rifts. I will take meat puppetry case back. Please don't act like battlefield in future. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015: Apparently this "ceasefire" has meant that the conflict is ongoing? I should advise both of you to calm down, take a break if you need to, and return to the debate after a day or two with cooler heads. If you would like, I can arrange for you to be given short blocks :-) Peace please!!! - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

3rr

Your recent editing history at Siachen conflict 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^TALK  11:02, 1 October 2015 (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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Human3015 (Result: ). Thank you. Human3015^TALK  16:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Siachen conflict discussion

Hi Freeatlast, Thanks for your agreement with my revised proposal. Unfortunately, I should also note that you have made a number of personal attacks against other editors in the course of the discussion, which is not welcome. Such attacks vitiate the atmosphere and make it only more difficult to reach consensus. Note that you had already violated 3RR before the discussion got going, and you were saved only because the article had been protected by then. Can I urge you to be more calm and clear-headed in your discussions on Indo-Pak disputes? You can bring the issues to WP:INDOPAK if you need assistance from more experienced members who can mediate. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Islam 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.

Please note your first removal of the image today is your first revert for the purposes of counting 3RR. DeCausa (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Stop changing sheikh ehsan elahi zaheer rh article ok

Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.19 (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop changing sheikh bin baz rh

Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.19 (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indo-Pakistani war of 1947. 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.
Please see also WP:BIASED, which states that the sources must be reliable, not "neutral". Kautilya3 (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You are doing wrong edits on sheikh uthaymeen

Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.106.187.219 (talk) 10:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Saff V. (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hadith and Criticism of Hadith (Authenticity Category)". 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 28 November 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. 04:34, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Nov 21, 2015

Your recent editing history 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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 06:04, 21 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) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What is RPC?

What is an RFC? Oh, by the way, you could take a look in www.thereligionofpeace.com , he organizes a list, the way the guy organizes seems okay to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odirjmm (talk • contribs) 15:16, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Hadith and Criticism of Hadith (Authenticity Category), 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/Hadith and Criticism of Hadith (Authenticity Category), 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, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Please note that I am not the filing party but rather a volunteer at the DRN. JQTriple7 (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

vit k2 new age site

thanks for the warning but????

I have cited peer review journals and all is sci (new concept for some)

Ahmadis have been declared as NON-MUSLIMS by all major schools of thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranasrule (talk • contribs) 17:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop removing sourced content form Mawlid without proper consensus and discussion on the relevant talk page.

You also seem to be engaged in edit war. If you keep doing this, strict action will be taken. Thanks.Septate (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop disruptive editing

I evaluate your series of edits in multiple articles as disruptive editing. Your recent revert accompanied removing sources! did you notice that? You are advised to participate talk page discussions before making such edits. Btw, this the photo you removed via your disruptive edit. Mhhossein (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein If you are pissed off you know where the ANI is. I have already made an edit to include one picture, i will include this one too. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Pissed off, pissed off, pissed off.... could you stop saying that? Mhhossein (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein but you said it yourself like three times. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

It was just a reflection of your behavior. Mhhossein (talk) 10:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein why do you want me to stop using this word? I mean really dude! What seems to be the problem? Is it profane in your religion/country or something? Does it have some special definition where you come from? I don't think I have ever heard of this being used for anything except anger, but then again, I haven't been all around the world. So what seems to be the problem? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

You can check how offensive and/or impolite you were repeating the word. Mhhossein (talk) 11:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mhhossein there is a huge difference between telling someone to Piss off and saying that someone is "pissed off". It is kinda not my fault if you confused the two and started an ANI report. Pissed off simply mean, very angry. nothing else. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The ANI report had nothing to do with this case. The ANI is rooted in your behavioral and edit pattern. Mhhossein (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Some of the people who read your comments understand English differently than you do. I suspect that some of them understand it through translation programs. Translation programs are not very good with slang, idioms, and with personal abbreviations (abbreviations that are not generally understood such "ad hom" for "ad hominem").-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion about you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mhhossein (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Archiving at ANI

I reverted your archiving at WP:ANI because you removed 282,974 bytes and many sections with recent comments. I hope to start a discussion at WT:AN later about archiving because I don't know why people have chosen to archive AN/ANI (what happened to the bot?), nor what the criterion is. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq I archives the sections which seemed to have been read by the involved parties. It was housekeeping as far as I could see. I just saw ten or so sections which were taking up space and just archived them. Perhaps you can ask for ANI to be included in the list of pages that should not be archived manually? People do archive manually from time to time. ty for the heads up. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. No, we only archive based on time not on the size of space it is feeding. Normally we wait 48 hours to archive. The bot archives after 72 hours of inactivity if it ever shows up. I did the same by archiving quickly, but I learned that you have to wait a minimum of 48 hours in order to archive it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I started a discussion. See WT:Administrators' noticeboard#Archiving of AN and ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No blanking

The content I removed is warranted, unlike your warning. Those two specific sources are not reliable (see WP:RS), and check the article's talk page. --92slim (talk) 05:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Nikah mut‘ah edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nikah mut‘ah. 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.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Originator response: You have deleted “Debate on the Hadith” unjustifiably!!

The first response to my article from your good selves was to place a tag for “speedy deletion” on it. Shortly after this another editor or editors confirmed the article as containing new material with non-duplicative content. I thought the matter was closed, but today I see you have deleted it. I cannot agree with your suggestion that I edit the existing Article “Criticism of Hadith” to incorporate my new material in it. I have given careful attention to the existing Article and I find it differs from mine in content and format. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that the very title of the existing Article may alienate some potential readers among the Muslims public. I have written eight Articles for Wikipedia (5 English and 3 Arabic) in the last six months and this latest one “Debate on the Hadith” is the only one to suffer deletion and so quickly. Its deletion represents a waste of over 250 man-hours from a qualified, knowledgeable and experienced writer on this subject. I have read through hundreds of pages of publications and numerous contents in over 150 active web sites for relevant material to summarize and accumulate the various views “for and against” which is indeed complex and particularly difficult to comprehend if the reader is not an Arabic speaker. The new Article is, in my opinion, a fresh update that is relevant at this point in time. It reflects the most recent and current discussions on the internet as well as key publications from both schools of thought. It’s neutral; it does not agree or disagree with either side. A more constructive action would have been to direct “Criticism of Hadith” to “Debate on the Hadith” and not the other way around. In this context I have failed to find one like it within any existing Article in Wikipedia. Might I suggest that the deletion of this 8th Article of mine is the result of lack of specialist knowledge of the subject? Its deletion is a great disappointment to me and, I feel, a loss for Wikipedia readers particularly since it has been done by a Wikipedia Administrator rather than an outsider. I find myself severely discouraged by your action in this matter.YdhaW (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Nikah mut‘ah. 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 ~~~~}}.

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.  slakr^\ talk / 06:09, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

@User:Slakr Every single one of my revert edits show that it was only to include the sources/text asked for by other editor, which I usually do in the very next edit. Further proof of this is that the editor who was reverting has apologized to me on the talkpage for reverting me, even further proof is that the editor who was reverting me has now accepted the version proposed by me and two other editors. to be frank, the matter was laid to rest almost 12 hours ago and the article now shows consensus. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Keep to those assurances, this won't happen again. --slakr^\ talk / 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

You've now been blocked 4 times for edit warring. In reality, this one should have been much longer. How, exactly, is this reassuring me that you understand that, regardless of how right you think you are, edit warring isn't a valid approach to dispute resolution? Furthermore, how is rolling back edits in a content dispute even a valid use of twinkle? --slakr^\ talk / 06:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Slakr I used twinkle just to simplify the edit. you can see from my very next edit that I edited the text to conform to consensus formed at the Talkpage. My use of twinkle was just to simplify the process, instead of copy pasting from the previous edit, I reverted using Twinkle then edited using the visual editor. my other twinkle reverts are also followed by my adding sources demanded by slim. The twinkle revert is just there to simplify editing. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

And this one? And this one? Are you aware that there is an undo function that actually does undo the edit and allows you to change it and allows you to actually create an edit summary? More to the point, are you aware that there is a bright-line limit of three reverts every 24 hours? Are you willing to offer any sort of reassurances that you understand this rule and are able to adhere to it? This is particularly important if you're literally reporting users to the noticeboard for it. --slakr^\ talk / 07:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Slakr I will give my last two cents and leave the matter in your hands.

1. I have already told you about why I use twinkle, If you want me to use undo>summary>edit I can start doing that. I have merely used twinkle to speed up editing, you will find no abuse on my part.
2. I am aware of three revert, and I try to stop at one revert when reverting without any further edits. however my reverts in this article were merely made to meet the demands in edit summaries/TP. If a source was asked, it was added after reverting, if someone wanted me to mention something as an opinion, I reverted merely to add that as an opinion. Although this may look disruptive to you seeing the twinkle tag, so I will make sure I just rewrite/copypaste instead of reverting. If you, as an admin, require that I get at least one user to agree with my before making this kind of reverts I can do that. I am already making sure my edits are watched over by uninvolved editors,
3. As far as the article in question is concerned, I have done almost everything I could do to actually avoid a war. I invited ten other editors to judge my edits, most of those ten routinely disagree with me in some matters and we reach consensus after discussion.
4. When I was being reverted by Slim, I met every demand he made. If he wrote that a claim was unsourced, I sourced it in my next edit. He even demanded that the lede should be sourced, and I sourced it. He went on to remove my sources from the lede, saying that they were making it look ugly.
5. I have recently developed a habit of pinging uninvolved editors to talkpages whenever one my edits is reverted, as I edit in highly contentious areas. You will see from the TP in question that the uninvolved editors agreed with me, but even then I fulfilled the demands made by slim, e-g sourcing, moving text, trimming, etc.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, for one, the edits weren't vandalism. That edit summary only gets popped out when you click "rollback (VANDAL)," so you should probably familiarize yourself with what constitutes vandalism and what constitutes good-faith edits. Furthermore, you still haven't addressed the three revert rule. Have you even read it? Do you feel your behavior might have violated it in some form, and how? --slakr^\ talk / 07:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Slakr I have edited my above statement to include 3PR. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed you did, but you're still not understanding what constitutes a revert, likely because either you repeatedly have failed to take my advice and read the policy I've linked or because you're unable to comprehend it and apply it to the situation at hand. Until you're able to look at the page history that you and the other editor created and explain why, exactly, the actions you took violate the three-revert rule, this block remains necessary. --slakr^\ talk / 07:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Slakr I already stated that I reverted when I assumed a source was being demanded or a change was being demanded. I then went on to edit the article as demanded. I have also said that if you so desire I can , from now onwards, make sure that I have someone agreeing with my exact edit on the Talkpage before reverting and editing. you can see from my contribution history that almost every edit I have made recently has been discussed on a talkpage. To be frank I was actually writing a Talkpage comment when you blocked me FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This is very simple; I'm asking for you to demonstrate that you understand the three-revert rule, why it applies in this situation, and what constitutes a revert. The simplest way to do this is to explain how the series of edits you made might violate it. I appreciate that you promise not to make an edit unless you have "someone agreeing," but that doesn't actually prevent edit warring or demonstrate knowledge of the three-revert rule; it just means that someone has to agree with your edits for you to think it's okay to edit war. It's very simple: explain how what you did violated the policy and tell me what steps you can take to guarantee that another three-revert rule block—not just another edit warring block—won't be necessary due to your actions in a few days on a different article. --slakr^\ talk / 08:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@User:Slakr I understand three-revert rule quite well. I think my edits violated it because I was undoing Slim's deletions and then adding sources etc which counts as

more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.

even if it was done to add what he demanded. I did not mean to say that I will be edit warring from on, I was merely saying that I will be using the TP. As I said above, I will be trying to maintain 1revert per day on the articles I edit. I am not sure what kind of assurances you can be provided. You can follow my watchlist if you want, I can provide you with my RSS key. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"Undoing"

Hello!

By User:SportingCP1906

I saw you deleted a lot of the information I put in Sporting Club de Portugal page. I'm a little tired of being considered biased and so on. Almost every source I put people claim is not reliable! If a portuguese newspaper is not reliable then what can I do? If everything is considered to be untrustworthy I can't edit the page. Most of the things before I started editing were there, now I make the page a little better and more informative and I'm accused of this or that.

As such, I'm asking you to undid the deleted information, in order for me to prove the things written rather than having to start from scratch. Then I can submit the things again and if do not agree be free to do whatever you want. I'm putting a lot of effort into this, alone, and it's getting frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingCP1906 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you remove the BLP violation in Rivalries section? (read my reply in WP:ANI) 85.240.145.18 (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)