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'

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)

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)

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)

articles like this: Debate on the Hadith, are the main reason i still bother to donate my money to wikipedia. YdhaW has done an excellent job compiling these critically important areas within islamic schools of thought and teaching- into a single coherent article. considering the article was very recently created it will undoubtedly need refinement over the weeks and months to come, specifically the opening statements of the article, and the section "whats next?", should be rephrased to fall more inline with the encyclopedic standards wikipedia seeks to maintain. i would also go so far to suggest FreeatlastChitchat has warranted receiving discipline for his actions reverting the article without consensus. The5thForce (talk) 16:03, 23 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)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Manualy unblocked user continues disruptions. Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 18:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Tawassul article

Hi,why did you tamper with Tawassul article like that without talking with me? The editing i did before follow rules and regulations of wikipedia. Can you please revert everything back or talk with me. otherwise, i will take a legal step against you.Salatiwiki (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Salatiwiki you should be careful here due to the obsession in wikipedia regarding WP:NOLEGALTHREATS within whose safeguards Wikipedia users vehemently defend a position above the law. GregKaye 16:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Racism in Italy". 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 15 January 2016.

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. 01:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Racism in Italy, 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) 15:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Your opinions are neither wanted nor requested

As you have lied several times on the talk:Muhammad page, you are now advised you are NOT to post on my talk page again. If you do so, you will be brought to ANI for WP:HARASSMENT which will be yet another case against you.Trinacrialucente (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente your disruptive editing will earn you a warning, which will be posted at your talkpage. Feel free to report me if you feel harassed by a warning. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI-notice

There is currently yet another discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Trinacrialucente (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Trinacrialucente no hard feelings dude, this happens every time I revert someone's pov edits. Why don't you give WP:OR and WP:SYNTH a read while the ANI goes through? Believe me, you wont spend more than 20 minutes reading them, and your editing perspective may change drastically seeing what wikipedia does not allow. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Criticism of Hadith

You've been warned for edit warring at Criticism of Hadith per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Code16 reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: Both warned). You are risking a block if you revert again at that article before Feb. 1st, per the terms explained in the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Hadith of the Twelve Successors

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hadith of the Twelve Successors. 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. Jim1138 (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138 did you care to read the TP discussion? This is just an IP troll trying to add OR of his favourite religion. Please see the TP discussion. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Admin wanabees rarely read Talk pages and prefer giving warnings rather than advice. You should have just ref tagged that names content, waited say a week, and then you would have been able to delete it as unreferenced content. It could not then be returned without references. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

PS, I think you were VERY lucky that it was Drmies, one of the most fair minded and sensible administrators, that settled the ANI report. You are unlikely to be that lucky again - so if I were you I'd be very restrained in language used in the future (talk only about content), and for some time in any edits that revert or remove content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Tiptoethrutheminefield, a warning is just a warning, and Jim1138 warned the IP editor too. Take it easy. As for admin wannabee, I think we could do worse than giving Jim the badge, but I'm speaking from anecdotal evidence. Tiptoe, and Freeatlast, admins (and wannabees) often have a hard time figuring out who's right and who's wrong in an edit war (or what appears to be an edit war), which is why it is important to a. leave clear edit summaries (wasn't done here) b. make it clear on the talk page what's going on--blaming a "shia troll" isn't clear, and an admin (or wannabee) might think you are the disruptor. Note that edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I think posting standard warnings on editor's pages is almost never productive. If the warning is deserved but delivered without advice it is pointless. If it is undeserved or misunderstood it just antagonizes. Your advice on edit summaries and talk page explanations, given in a one-off and personal way, is going to be more effective that a basic cut-and-paste warning notice that any editor can put on another editor's talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your AFD nominations

It's good to nominate the articles at AFD, if they deserve to be deleted. But per AFD, the nominator "[has to] search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability," an important step which you forget to do assuming your good faith. These careless nominations, as you see , has surprised the editors and they are asking why the subject is even nominated (see [1], [2] and [3]). By the way, I found this section informative. Mhhossein (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The trend of adding paragraphs to old comments after some days (or hours) without notifying the users, as you did here, is not acceptable. Mhhossein (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein I had already stated that when new sources are added I will add their review. you should have read the afd before voting FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, your edit was not a review rather they were a note to the closing admin. Even if you had stated that before, you should have made a new comment. The way you edited your older comment is not acceptable because the readers may be misled. Mhhossein (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi FreeatlasChitchat, i agree with Mhhossein, that how you added your extra edit may be confusing to other editors, especially as there is no date/time stamp added to it. I also agree with Mhhossein an additional *Comment added to the bottom of the discussion would be more appropriate, btw i do this sort of thing all the time and have no problems with doing so. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

ps. Hi Mhhossein and FreeatlastChitchat, my above note is only with regards to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of Jesus Praying Behind Mahdi (2nd nomination), as for FreeatlastChitchat's nomination, it needs to be noted that the first nomination ended with a "no consensus", which can be interpreted that a subject is in a grey area of notability. I found the nomination reasonable, with each of the article sources being analysed, although not all editors necessarily agreed with that analysis, and as the discussion closed as a keep, the article is now firmly set in wikispace. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Coolabahapple: Thanks for your comment. Per policies, each time we are going to nominate an article for deletion we have to search for sources for the first step, if notability is the motivation behind the nomination. The analysis of the sources is more related to the talk page of the article, not an AFD page. The first nomination could lead to any decision depending on how the editors participate in the discussion. As you see, more than one user (me) were questioning the nomination. --Mhhossein (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mhhossein, thanks for the explanation. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad

I understand frustration with (presumably) religious editors over such an innocuous and obvious statement. Nevertheless, as a 200% secular person, I don't think that the lead is any worse omitting the phrase "widely regarded to have founded Islam." The reason is this: as a compromise I tried to figure out how to include the phrase at the end of the lead's first paragraph. Doing so, I realized that the statement is provided in more specific language by the last sentence of the lead. E.g. it's redundant. Just my two cents. -Darouet (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2016 (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. Thank you. -Darouet (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Muhammad selling slaves". 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 6 February 2016.

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. 03:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

In case you hadn't heard, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are not "ethnic" groups

Your recent editing history at List of converts to Christianity 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 are 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. Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of converts to Christianity from Judaism 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 are 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. Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at List of converts to Christianity from 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 are 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. Trinacrialucente (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Trinacrialucente for your perusal. Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members, because selecting them is normally original research, and often contentious (see the corresponding discussion). Taken from this policy page. The phrase or similarly large human populations includes converts to other religions. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Your actions have lead to yet another WP:ANI case against you here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.28YET_ANOTHER.29_Incident_of_WP:VANDALISM_and_WP:POV_and_WP:EDITWAR_from_FreeatlastChitchat

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Muhammad selling slaves, 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/Muhammad selling slaves, 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) 04:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Lali Kandelaki

Hi there! Here are the links I found. There are in different languages. Google translate really butchers anything non-romance based I've found, so I appreciate the help so much! :D Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Лали Канделаки: «Я не имею права танцевать плохо»
• Ar izrādi 'Djagiļevs – Ņižinskis/Šeherezāde' Rīgā viesosies pasaules slavenas baleta zvaigznes
• ka Wiki Article in Georgian

Speedy deletion declined: Homafaran allegiance

Hello FreeatlastChitchat, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Homafaran allegiance, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this is well referenced and the author clearly did not make it up. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCD can you look at the TP of that article. None of the references talk about this so called "picture". FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Surely the picture is the one on this page, the first reference. Google translation of the Persian text includes

"According to the Department of History and Thought News headlines noon on 19 Bahman 1357 Cosmos drew people's attention and Bakhtiar, "air force personnel pledged their allegiance to Imam Khomeini" with images of the homage's news in the press published; in the image, a group of Airmen with formal attire were seen at the residence of the Imam from behind."

(my emphasis). He didn't make it up; this isn't an A11. Tak it to AfD if you think it should be deleted. JohnCD (talk) 10:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• "tirade of a petulant child ". You've been warned about tone and word choice before, Freeatlast, and I do not enjoy placing this block. Drmies (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  

@Drmies I will not ask for an unblock(I may even strike my comments when unblocked), but what adjectives should be used to describe someone who just blindly reverts me again and again, then says that I will have to "Answer to other users" instead of giving a single argument". What can one call a person who will not give his side of argument, even after multiple policy violations are presented to him, and his only reply is "you must convince me". I am not sure why you are unable to see this pattern. Every single time I even touch, and I do mean touch, any Iran/Shia related article these four five guys gang-up and start a small edit war. Simple policy violations, which will be removed at sight in other articles, are treated as highly controversial edits causing long drawn out talkpage discussions. Just look at my edit history. I have to fight tooth and nail to get a single cleanup "verified" by this "jury". Now had my edits been controversial this may have been another matter, but these are routine cleanups going on almost every minute in other articles. Such clear WP:OWN behavior ought to be crystal clear to you to be frank, and you can see this behavior is clearly disrupting my edits. Why should I have to engage in miles long TP discussion for simple, non controversial edits which are clearly in line with policy? This is like the damn inquisition to be frank.
The laughable(or pathetic) fact is that my edits have never, ever, ever been questioned by the community(excluding these guys whose accusations have been thrown out at ANI multiple times). For you see, if a person edits disruptively, vandalises and violated policy, his edits may (even then, a big MAY) be frowned upon and questioned. However not a single edit of mine has ever been questioned, then why this pattern of behavior? .Why should I be forced to waste my time explaining my edits to people who do not even have the WP:COMPETENCE to understand editing and policies? Just when did it become an editor's job to "explain" every single one of his edits. I am talking about routine cleanup here, I always discuss controversial edits on TP, and usually initiate the discussion there when involved in controversial matters. As this is not an unblock request you may refrain from replying, but I will appreciate it if you do reply.
Just a quote from the competence essay

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to mischief or incompetence. Don't spend too much time trying to figure out the reason for the disruption, because many trolls do their trolling by feigning incompetence. There's no point trying to distinguish between fake or real incompetence—disruption is disruption, and it needs to be prevented. Give editors a few chances, and some good advice, certainly—but if these things don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable time frame, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent.

FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

• Freeatlast, it is entirely possible that I sympathize with your situation, but that was not the way to handle this. There are better ways. Those ways are slower, but they are better since, in the end, they will involve such things as consensus on talk pages. But the other problem is that your behavior makes it just that much more difficult to call your opponents out on this or that noticeboard, since, well, not many onlookers on those boards appreciate the language that you--occasionally--use. Besides, you will find that I have made many blocks based on obstructionism, disruption, and/or incompetence, and I am not afraid to make more of those, but such blocks can only be made on strong and well-organized evidence.

  Also, do not be afraid to strike your remarks, apologize, and ask for an unblock. Well, this one is almost over, but striking it will always be appreciated, not just by me. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies ty. (It appears you cannot send public thanks when blocked lol). FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and thank me properly--but please remember what I said. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Twelver Shia Islam edits

Before you accuse me of "going into freakmode" you should take a look at your own hasty actions. If you read my edit summary, rather than freaking out, you would have seen i started a talk page discussion for my edits. I gave a clear link to this discussion topic in the edit summary; perhaps you should have kept calm and read it and responded to it before you freaked out and restored your silly edits.49.195.158.83 (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Your Falsification of Sources and Contentious Editing of Polish census of 1931

Consider this your final warning to stop falsely claiming that Apolinary Hartglas made allegations that the 1931 Census of Poland had been fixed or that anyone had confessed any such thing to him. You have been warned about this behavior before. If you have not read the sources cited, stop edit warring that they report something contrary to those who have read the sources. You have falsified the sources, which was your burden to prove (see WP:VERIFY) You have already been notified about edit warring. Your conduct is completely unacceptable.Doctor Franklin (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Doctor Franklin you are one guy, trying to get in his personal POV. Your pov editing has been reverted by multiple neutral editors. You can now say goodbye to this topic as your POV playground, for no matter how much vandalism you create, rest assured neutral editors will be there to revert you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, FreeatlastChitchat. You're free to take down Doctor Franklin's WP:ARBEE boilerplate as he was using it as an intimidation tactic. Your reversions were not disruptive, and contrived WP:POINTy editing practices are not something you are obliged to wear as a badge of shame. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edit warring

There's a discussion regarding your recent edit warring. Mhhossein (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Please reply to WP:AN3#User:FreeatlastChitchat reported by User:Mhhossein (Result: ). You should explain how your edits at Fajr decade are consistent with your assurance to User:Slakr in December that you would try to follow 1RR. Do you not consider yourself bound by this assurance any more? EdJohnston (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston: I would check his contributions to see if he had been respecting that or not! Mhhossein (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston I clarified this on the edit warring report, I will reply here too just incase Mhhossein did not follow it there. I consider myself bound by that assurance as far as any controversial edits are concerned. However if an editor reverts me "just for the heck of it" without giving any rationale for his revert, I do not consider myself bound by that assurance. Furthermore, when three editors agree with me I require the person who reverted me to "provide some rationale for his reverts". The guy reverting me should give a reason for reverting me and his saying "ZOMG you agreed to 1PR, I am just gonna revert you and play with you" is "NOT' a reason. To be frank such a person should be reprimanded (Or I should be allowed to say some harsh words to them which may keep them from engaging in this playground behavior again). So Mhhossein either tell us the reasons for your revert i.e. what problems did you have with my edit, and why do you consider my edit to be problematic; otherwise please stop being disruptive. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Muhammad selling slaves, 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) 20:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.44.13.10579.44.13.105 (talk • contribs) February 20, 2016

Regarding this ANI, I don't think 213.205.251.63 is getting it. If he comes back with some sort of rebuttal to my latest comment, I recommend we both just drop the stick until an Administrator deals with this. Also, again I'm sorry about saying you were in violation of WP:3RR. Boomer Vial^Holla 07:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Boomer Vial Yes I think that will be the best. Also, literally zero hard feelings on my part(I am actually quite thankful to you). Thank you ever so much for striking the comment I appreciate that quite a lot to be frank :D. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Your welcome. Also, to my atonishment, he once again posted a comment saying that Sufi is not in the diff. I'm just lost for words, considering I'm looking at it in another window as I'm typing this. Boomer Vial^Holla 08:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind but...

I hope you do not mind, but I had edited one of your posts on a talk page. The post was this one.[4] It was one of those compulsory notifications for AFD nominations. The Wikilink you posted did not work. It needed to work, so I fixed it.[5] I hope that you do not mind.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC) @ Toddy1 I appreciate the help, and do not mind at all. Let me just thank you :D FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Another "Ayatollah, I love you" page needs correcting

Please could you look at the page called America can't do a damn thing against us. It has a statement of translationese: "A week after the incident, the sheets and finances of Iran were confiscated by US." Are you able to work out what the editor who wrote it meant to say? If yes, please correct it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Your annoying language

Could I ask you modify the bold phrase you've used here so that it is not annoying and impolite? Mhhossein (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Could I ask Drmies to take care of it? Mhhossein (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein ofc you can ask him. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are mentioned here [6] in the arbitration request noticeboard. Xtremedood (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Reported at AN/edit warring

There's a point regarding your recent edit warring. Mhhossein (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined

A request for arbitration you were party to has been declined.

The request has been declined as alternate methods of dispute resolution specifically a RFC have not yet been undertaken.

For the Arbitration Committee. Amortias (T)(C) 20:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice - American politics

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 --slakr^\ talk / 02:32, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Manual of Style

You cited a manual of style issue here [7], however, Jobas reverted your edit. If it is a WP policy issue, feel free to add it to the talk page. Xtremedood (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Why you removed the pictures. The new policy is about removing pictures from info pox not articles.Jobas (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Gilgit Baltistan

Sir, I am here with a great hope. I am not a experienced person on Wikipedia. I feel few established users promote their ethnic biasness and use their links with admins or experience to manipulate Wikipedia policies. A new user despite having all sources and pinpointing contradictions in their weak sources always fail. Recent example. User SheriffIsInTown being a shia muslim has made controversial edits [8] with an intent to show Gilgit Baltistan a shia majority area. His edits contained 2 sources which I proved self contradicting with in themselves and also with these 9 independent sources which I provided. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. If you review all the material you will safely conclude that Gilgit Baltistan is a Sunni majority area. I tried very hard to make him understand wiki pedia policy that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content Still he edit warred. I made a balance edit [18] which shows both side of coin containing all 11 sources (9 mine and 2 his) but he and few admin/users influenced by him are not allowing the edits by me. Admins should be restoring Wikipedia policies but un fortunately they are not. Please as an independent admin intervene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.15.49 (talk) 14:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You know how anti muslims want to divide muslims between shia sunni Ismaili Ahmadi etc and unfortunately SheriffIsInTown is promoting their agenda to divide and rule as if gilgit Baltistan and rest of Pakistan are different religons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.15.49 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions 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 MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Muhammad Mahmood Alam, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 06:50, 20 March 2016 (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:MBlaze Lightning (Result: ). Thank you. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at History of the Indian Air Force, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. MBlaze Lightning -talk! 14:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You may make no more than one revert every 24 hours to a page within the India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan topic area for a period of 1 month, subject to the standard exceptions.

You have been sanctioned due to repeated edit warring

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. slakr^\ talk / 02:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)