User talk:22 Male Cali

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to War in Afghanistan (2001–present), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at War in Afghanistan (2001–present)‎. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you, I got it.22 Male Cali (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You have violated the 3 revert rule. Please self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported you for edit warring here Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at War in Afghanistan (2001–present) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. The Legend of Zorro 19:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pashton people

Please don't delete the hidden comment there - and please use edit summaries, you know how to use them. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

Regarding your recent comments and edit summaries at Islam in the United States: Please keep in mind that WP:BLP applies to all parts of the encyclopedia, including Talk page comments and edit summaries. If you can't discuss the topic in a civil fashion, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing it at all. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same person behind Inayity (talk · contribs)? i asked this cause you and he share alot in common. if you're not the same person as him then why don't you leave a comment at the talk page of that article?--22 Male Cali (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny he should say Me and Shabazz share a lot in common. That is the funniest thing I heard all day. but it made me smile. LOL. All editors should share an understanding of wikipedia rules. esp R.S for their rationale. --Inayity (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib Ali Qualifies.He was there originally--Inayity (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explain why Shahid Khan doesn't qualify?--22 Male Cali (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Inayity and I are not the same person. I left you a comment here because this is a warning about your Talk page and edit summary behavior—the next time you refer to the people in the infobox as fake Muslims, as criminals, or otherwise denigrate them, you may be blocked. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look man, i cannot think, type and behave like you. i'm a different person and i didn't offend anyone in anyway. if i say black muslims in america are usually associated with prisons and crimes it is not something that should get me blocked. this happens to be true and i said it "it's sad and shouldn't be that way". i'm not saying that black american muslims enjoy committing prisons/crimes ... my intention was to say islam is spreading in us prisons and the black american muslims are helping it spread. it's difficult to explain if you're not familiar with this subject. i lived in black communities, went to school and worked there, and watched their tv shows and movies since childhood, i see black and white people equally. that's why i'm trying to balance the infobox with images showing all races, and yes blacks deserve a little more representation there since they have a longer history in america.--22 Male Cali (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gain Talk Page agreement

Islam in the United States. On wiki we use the talk page to prevent an WP:EW. So before Pushing your version of things gain agreement. Because you are off to a funny start pushing your agenda around. You first had a problem with lack of non-Africans. I attended to that, and STILL you edit in a unwiki like way against the talk page. You do not need talk page for everything, but esp for controversial edits.--Inayity (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're just trying to start an edit war with me. but i'm not going to fall for your trap, i'm gonna involve admins so they can come and see what you're doing. what's funny is that you first kept mentioning to me R.S, R.S and now all of a sudden you decided to change your stance by rejecting R.S and using your personal assessment and other crazy ideas to make your point.--22 Male Cali (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inayity is right. If you keep up your current behavior at Islam in the United States, you will be blocked for edit warring. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm evidently not edit warring. are you trying to tell me not to edit wikipedia? i may report you for abusing me. you may be an admin but you have no right to bully me around. it is quite evident that you and inayity are working as a team against me and i have a feeling that you two may actually be the same person.--22 Male Cali (talk) 05:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

22 Male Cali, a quick review of your edits over the last 3 days show about 6 or 7 (minimum) edits to images on the article Islam in the United States. Most are edits where you attempt to get your desired version. This is textbook edit-warring, as per WP:EW. This is different that 3 reverts in 24 hours which would lead to an immediate block, but edit-warring over multiple days will also lead to such a block. We have a concept of Be bold ... if it's reverted, you may NOT re-add it until you have discussed in on the article talkpage and obtained new consensus. You are ALWAYS required to edit according to consensus .. it's one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and the fact that your edit was removed once is proof that you do not yet have consensus. As such, being warned (not threatened) is a necessity in order to get you to STOP, review the policy ... or else a block is, indeed, imminent. That's not abuse - that's being guided gently toward community norms ES &L 18:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you carefully check my edits at that article, i was swapping images and deciding which person is more notable and qualifiable. if you think i was repeatedly adding the same person then you are wrong. now, what about the other editor (Inayity)? why doesn't he get a warning on his/her talk page?--22 Male Cali (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did carefully check ... what you're describing above is and always has been improper behaviour on Wikipedia. A revert does not always mean adding the exact same image. It is not up to YOU to determine who is more notable and qualifiable ... you start that discussion on the talkpage before you ever make a single edit to the article itself ES &L 19:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And let me just add, the fact that the other editor did not get a warning was likely an oversight - but one that has corrected in ANI. A key concept on Wikipedia is worry about your own behaviour first - it will help you as you move forward on the project. ES &L 19:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one's mentioned it...

When a senior admin gives you some good advice, telling her "you are wrong dear" is pretty foul. You're clearly frustrated. Wikipedia is frustrating, especially the first time you get involved in an editorial dispute. Some admins are capable of remembering this, and behaving in a friendly, helpful fashion to inexperienced, frustrated users. Moodriddengirl is one of them. Responding to her assistance with chauvinism is boorish, at best. 76.72.20.152 (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Sockpuppet report involving your name

Sorry for the trouble. But recent edit on Islam in the United States by a new user User:Brinkidiom have a familiar pattern has set off a few alerts. I would like to AGF but to eliminate doubt I have opened a Sockpuppet check--Inayity (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an alternate account to edit the same article in order to try and create false consensus is an illegitimate use of an alternate account - and is unethical as a minimum - and would result in blocks for both the main account and the sock account - I do sincerely hope that you did not try that ES &L 10:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I swear i'm not Brinkidiom. i'm using only one account to edit that article and i don't even edit much until this issue started over the american muslim images in the infobox--22 Male Cali (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racial language

Please cease the racial language you are pursuing on articles that have nothing to do with race or ethnicity. It can sound very xenophobic. Pass a Method talk 14:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, i'm not even editing articles. secondly, race or ethnicity has everything to do with the images in the infobox of 'islam in the united states'. you can't have one race in there or too many of one race. it has to be well balanced so it meets the quality of an encyclopedia.--22 Male Cali (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? why did you block me for 72 hours without even warning me or discussing or verifying the information? i improved that article by updating some images, replacing the image of Shaquille O'Neal with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and a few other minor stuff. Mr. O'Neal has said, "I'm Muslim, I'm Jewish, I'm Buddhist, I'm everybody 'cause I'm a people person."[1] [2]. that by defintion is not a muslim but something else, but in any case, i only swapped his image with someone who is a more well known muslim. First i was accused of being User:Brinkidiom and now you're chasing me around so that i don't improve islam related articles. am i targeted because i'm muslim?--22 Male Cali (talk) 00:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned in User_talk:22_Male_Cali#WP:BLP. Toddst1 (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the warning i received: "No, Inayity and I are not the same person. I left you a comment here because this is a warning about your Talk page and edit summary behavior—the next time you refer to the people in the infobox as fake Muslims, as criminals, or otherwise denigrate them, you may be blocked. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)"

Looking at my edits at 'List of American Muslims', where did i refer to the people as fake muslims, as criminals, or otherwise denigrate them? i said "ice cube is not only a rapper but also an actor, record producer, screenwriter, film producer and director", see infobox at Ice Cube, that's exactly what he is. he's been in movies since 1991. before that edit summary, i said "shaq aint even a muslim, this is confirmed news". that's to let editors know so they don't revert me. why put his image in that article when he clearly told the media that: "I'm Muslim, I'm Jewish, I'm Buddhist, I'm everybody 'cause I'm a people ? neither is his first name of a muslim nor his last, and i didn't even remove him from the article but just swapped his image with someone we know who has converted to islam [3] which is Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. you abused your adminship and you deserve punishment for that. not only that, you placed false info in wikipedia which is read by 1,000s of students everyday.--22 Male Cali (talk) 05:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

this is an unjust block. i improved List of American Muslims and Toddst1 abused his adminship by blocking me for 72 hours without any warning. what on earth is going on?

Decline reason:

Declined without review since you failed to assume good faith regarding the administrator's actions. Also see WP:NOTTHEM. — Daniel Case (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

Bbb23, you wrongly accused me of being User:Brinkidiom and now it's proven that i'm not him. i don't have a clue who that person is and what he's trying to do, i'm solo in wikipedia, and i don't edit much but just improve something here and there once in a while on my free time. the SPI should have revealed who User:Brinkidiom is. Todd1 unjustly blocked me right before i could go to the SPI and explain that Fareed30 is my main account which i use from being on a separate pc. according to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, using one additional account in some cases is allowed. i did not use more than one account at Islam in the United States .... and in the Pashtun people article, it was a simple mistake, i undid image change accidently while logged on using Fareed30. [4]. i regret making that mistake because i knew it would create confusion and after it happened there was nothing to do about but just ignore it ... and i explained to admin Dougweller the problem and he oked it. see User talk:Dougweller/Archive 28#Reply. in other words, there were no problems between me and anyone on the Pashtun people article. I wrongly believed that wikipedia is some kind of a social or dating network for students, like Facebook or something, but luckily i realized now that it is not a social website so i will not create any other additional account. :) 22 Male Cali (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were using multiple accounts to edit the same topic area, sometimes within minutes of each other on the same page. I fail to see how this meets the subset of allowed uses included at WP:SOCK#LEGIT. That being said, even if we put aside any socking issues whatsoever you still have used this account to edit war and continue to blame others in your unblock requests for the fallout from your actions as an editor. Do you understand why your edits are seen as disruptive? How would you edit differently in order to avoid these same mistakes should you be unblocked? These are the questions that you will need to answer for an admin to consider unblocking your account. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Unblock two

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).

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

Request reason:

See all my edits and not even once did i edit the same topic within minutes of each other on the same page. my edits were misunderstood by someone as edits of war but i had no intention of edit war with anyone because i already know that i'm not good with that. anyway, i will not use this account to edit the same page and i'll link it to my other account. i'll use this one for minor edits which i may use only in case i'm using mobile phone or when i'm on my older pc which has a defective keyboard. btw, i created this account for legit purpose, mainly to hide from my Facebook friends because they sometimes watch what i do in wikipedia.--22 Male Cali (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This account was properly blocked after a properly conducted SPI with a CU uncovered an illegitimate and disruptive account not previously disclosed. Your problems on Facebook are not of concern here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You were switching between your usernames to edit different sections of ANI over a two day period as well as an hour apart here.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i figured that the first report was really unnecessary and i couldn't remove it since others had already commented. and at the same time, i couldn't reveal that i was fareed, i didn't want to make the situation more complicated then it already was. after that i just wanted to cease editing with this account until the first issue is resolved but got sucked into it by the other editors in the islamic stuff (like a trap). then someone filed SPI and now this.--22 Male Cali (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My main mistake was not linking this account with the other. i didn't know that this was a requirement but now i read it and it is required.--22 Male Cali (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was a main mistake - there are many and they are continuing. When an SPI was opened, if you were at all editing in good faith, you would/should have identified yourself as Fareed30 (talk · contribs) . Claiming you didn't have time to respond to the SPI is laughable, duplicitous and further evidence that disruption is endemic to your interactions. You had plenty of time to write the rant(s) above. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ranting. you blocked me for 72 hours when i didn't even violate any rule of wikipedia [5], and after that block i couldn't use this account to write at SPI and i refused to use the fareed account because that would've been a violation. therefore, i couldn't identify my self as fareed. plus, nobody asked if i had another account, and like i said if i linked this account to fareed then everyone would've known who i was and that was my mistake.--22 Male Cali (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you could have very easily responded to the SPI on this page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy reading dozens of wikipedia rules, my eyes hurt now, and i figured that editing own page, other than unblock request, constitutes a violation and could extend my block. hey, i'm not an expert like you. :)--22 Male Cali (talk) 21:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toddst1, can you explain what is this and this?--22 Male Cali (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an edit conflict to me. Same outcome - two different admins in addition to the one who blocked you. Maybe you should take the not-so-subtle hint. Toddst1 (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]