User talk:Wiqi55/2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your help! JN466 07:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! Wiqi(55) 19:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the date in the caption. I had copied that caption from the GA-approved version of the article – clearly a daft thing to do. I should have checked! I've added a separate paragraph about it now, as it seems quite important. Best, --JN466 13:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The "after his death" claim was only added 2 days ago. See [1]. I agree that the event is important and deserves a mention. Thanks. Wiqi(55) 21:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Aah, thanks. :) I'm glad I don't have that gaffe on my record. :) Have you been following the arbitration case at all? And if so, what do you think of it to date? --JN466 23:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Help needed

Salam dear Wiqi55,

Would you please take a look at Moon-God Allah? I think it is a clear case of POV Fork and should be deleted. All sources are Christian unreliable sources and the argument is readily flawed. The article has been nominated for deletion in WikiFa by me, but I don't have the required experience to do it here.

PS: User:ZxxZxxZ recommended to contact you for this nomination.

Best regards, Taha (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thābit ibn Qurra

February 18 marks the anniversary of Thābit ibn Qurra's death. Would you like to work together on expanding and improving the article to elevate its status to at least a Good Article status ? If you're interested, then please leave me a message on my talk page or drop me an email. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Islam-start

Template:Islam-start has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pass a Method talk 02:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited ʿAbd al‐Wājid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ottoman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating your 1RR restriction. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:27, 19 February 2012 (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).

Wiqi55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The terms I agreed upon explicitly state that "Any 1RR violation after warning can result in a reinstatement of the indefinite block". Since no warning was given, this block is not valid and not inline with the agreed upon terms (see the head of this page for the full terms). Wiqi(55) 16:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

OK. I'll unblock you if you'll agree to a normal 1RR restriction; the current one is obviously too weak. --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:13, 20 February 2012 (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.

  • Additional comment: I was completely inline with 1RR in the past 2+ months of constant editing. Only yesterday I made one second revert, and only once. And it was due to an obvious bait and disruptive behavior of another editor. After I reverted this editor in another article (mostly agenda-driven edits that misrepresented sources and violated a number of content policies), he showed up in an article he never edited just to keep reverted my edits without using an edit summary. See [2] (rv. [3]) [4], (not on the same day, [5]) and then [6]. Absurd. I think that no admin would seriously look at the situation and ignore the clear bait and disruptive editing. Wiqi(55) 16:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you point to where the "warning" condition was discussed and agreed to? Tiderolls 23:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
For some reason, it's "1RR if we catch you and warn you and then you do it again", as opposed to a simple 1RR. See [7]. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm thoroughly confused. That seems to equate to 2RR. Anyway, I'll leave this for a more enlightened mind to decipher. Tiderolls 23:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I'm OK with having normal 1RR restriction. But just wondering, does 1RR normally entails an immediate indefinite block after just one violation? This seems unnecessarily harsh. Wiqi(55) 04:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Remember, "indefinite" means "until the community is assured it will not happen again". You're now assuring the community that you will never break 1RR again; ever. Re-indef is our way of saying "you broke your promise, and we don't believe you anymore" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. What about the ovbious bait? Anyways, I have already agreed to normal 1RR restrictions, so I'm not sure why am I still blocked. Wiqi(55) 04:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
What "obvious bait"? You're responsible for your own actions; end of discussion. Put up another unblock request and it will be processed. --jpgordon::==( o ) 08:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course I'm responsible for my own actions. But I was asking whether the disruptive actions of another editor, as described above in the additional comment, is considered acceptable or not. Wiqi(55) 10:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, typically the only "excuse" for breaking 3RR is for outright vandalism and extreme violations of the WP:BLP policy ... "baiting" does not typically fit there. We have WP:DR for a reason, and 1RR is typically more restrictive. Indeed, we have a situation right now where the "baiter" has been blocked for almost a week. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Wiqi55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have agreed to normal 1RR restrictions. Wiqi(55) 10:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Agrees to 1RR. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Al-Jazari

Hello, i wanna understand your problem about people who are kurds. There are thousands artical about arabic people and you dont write FACT after word of arab. but why you dont respect to kurds? its because, you are arabic? How will you change that, Al Jazari is a kurd? you know that, its impossible, nobody can steal kurdish history anymore! if you wanna be fair, do same for all articles!--Gomada (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Please have a look at WP:RS. The sources you added to the article (blogs, student papers) are not considered reliable. You'll need to find a reliable source before adding facts to article. You can ask whether a source is considered reliable at WP:RSN. And I have nothing against Kurds or anybody else. I do the same for others too, see: [8], [9], etc. BTW, the DSB article states that "All that we know of al-Jazarī’s life contained in the introduction to his work, Kitāb fi Ma‘rifat al-hiyal al-handasiyya".[10]. Maybe somebody should look that up and see if the Kurdish claim is mentioned there. Wiqi(55) 20:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
You didnt answer to my any question and you have said that, you do same to all. But why i dont see FACT after word of persian at this article? You are sure that, he is persian? Why we should prove that somebody is kurd or not? why just for kurdish people? i want you to do same to all articles. if you dont do, then please dont touch articles which are about kurdish people! --Gomada (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I just added one. Thanks for noticing this. The same should be done to Kurdish as well. Wiqi(55) 15:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Why you delete Kurdish identity of Al-Jazari?--Gomada (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. When you recently edited Maimonides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Please do not remove content as you did here. The reason i made that edit is because a few months ago there was dispute over the reliability of CIA. With these two sources that back CIA it will quell any future disagreements. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 19:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, these two sources are not reliable. Do please have a look at WP:RS. Also, a few months ago, you ignored the fact that the CIA was an outlier in this case (which was the view expressed by other editors at WP:RSN). Ignoring community input is just POV-pushing and being tendentious. Sorry. Perhaps we should ask for a 3rd opinion? Wiqi(55) 20:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Whether its reliable or not is disputable. But those references have a different purpose. The purpose of those references is to back up the CIA references, as i already stated above. If books or journals back another source, it gives more reliability to the original source. Pass a Method talk 20:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
So you're backing up an exceptional claim made by a partisan source, like the CIA, with two unreliable and self-published sources? Unreliable and self-published sources are not usable for quantitative data. Period. In any case, given that you're the one trying to add questionable sources to the article, maybe you should take these sources to WP:RSN, but without ignoring community input this time. Wiqi(55) 20:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The CIA source has already been widely discussed over three noticeboards multiple times. Why should we go through that entire process again? Pass a Method talk 20:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It is well-established (from the 3rd opinion and neutral editors on the noticeboard) that the CIA is just an outlier here, which you have ignored. I also meant your 2 latest "support" sources. Why don't you try WP:RSN for these new sources? Wiqi(55) 21:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Once again, your claim is debateable. If it is based on CIA, it is probably reliable since CIA is widely used all over wikipedia. But feel free to go to WP:RSN yourself. Pass a Method talk 22:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you edit war on Wikipedia, as you did at Islam, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pass a Method talk 21:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your unblock condition from December

Wiqi55, you seem to have violated your WP:1RR condition at Islam on 11 March. It's especially alarming that this is the *second* time you have broken the 1RR since your December unblock. Please explain why your indefinite block should not be restored. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I have violated 1rr. Could you provide two recent diffs where I have removed or added the same material in 24hours? Wiqi(55) 22:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Here are your recent edits at Islam:
Page: Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
  1. 19:45, 11 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 481351228 by Pass a Method (talk) removed unreliable, self-published sources")
  2. 19:52, 11 March 2012 (edit summary: "/* Caliphate and Sunni-Shia split (632–750) */ this new title is POVish; it also ignores tha major role played by other groups, like the Kharijites (lit. splitters), Uthmanists, neutrals, etc")
  3. 20:17, 11 March 2012 (edit summary: "Perhaps an uninvolved editor should explain why one source (+ two unrelialbe sources) are being given more weight here.")
  4. 20:20, 11 March 2012 (edit summary: "rv. not directly relevant; there is already a Muhammad section.")
  5. 20:47, 11 March 2012 (edit summary: "Look up the word "majority" in a dictionary. Re-written per accuracy and 3rd opinion (see talk page).")
It is clear from the language used in your edit summaries that each of these edits is undoing the work of others. Edits 2 and 3 are consecutive and so are edits 4 and 5. By the usual reckoning explained in the WP:3RR policy these edits amount to three reverts on 11 March. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I had no idea that undoing entirely different and unrelated material (some of which added many weeks ago by different editors) would constitute a break of 1rr. I will avoid doing so now that I know of this. Wiqi(55) 23:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It's difficult for me to understand how you would misunderstand the meaning of "one" after this discussion. Tiderolls 00:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Last time it was 2 reverts of the same material. I just thought that 1rr is about making the same (or related) edits more than once. Edits of entirely unrelated content are supposed to have their own counter. Wiqi(55) 01:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I won't interfere with EdJohnston's actions here, but your explanation sheds no light on how 1RR could be interpreted as anything beyond one revert. Tiderolls 02:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Say you have an article with 4 edits made last week. Instead of using rollback, you reverted 4 times manually giving useful edit summaries. Would that constitute a violation of 3RR? I'd say no, and I've never seen an editor blocked for doing this. So even if you made 4 reverts, technically, you're only undoing the work of others only once. I thought what applies to 3RR, in good faith, also applies to 1RR. Wiqi(55) 04:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

W: You need to back off, a lot. I'd suggest offering 0RR for a month to demonstrate sincerity. You also need to not make edit comments like "Look up the word "majority" in a dictionary" William M. Connolley (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. BTW, concerning "majority", there was a dispute about its use and meaning within the same paragraph 1-2 years ago (see talk:islam). I misread a ref as the text of the article and thought the old problem resurfaced. That's all. Wiqi(55) 04:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
If i had violated the 1rr rule, admins would ban me straight away, as that is my unblock condition. i hope that if it happens that i somehow break the 1rr rule, then i should be shown leniency like wiqi55. if not then wiqi55 should be banned indefinitely NOW ! I hope for some consistency and fairness from mods--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Wiqi, I also will not interfere with EdJohnston's decision here, but I must say your contribution history in Islam is disturbing; it shows you having multiple reverts in that article in the same day, as well as multiple reverts of the same editor in the same day. While each revert dealt with different content and can be argued technically as a non-violation, in the future please do not interpret this as a loophole to allow you to violate the spirit behind a 1RR sanction. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

He has violated the 1RR, see his edits on Islam article. He should be banned, and I am annoyed he isnt, as If i did the same as him i know for a fact that some mods would be after my head (as am also on 1RR). Isnt Wikipedia supposed to be 1 rule for all? sigh...--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It would be unfortunate if Admins were influenced by this. My original restriction was 1RR+Warning (not just 1RR). Also, in M2's first day after block he was using misleading edit summaries. See him here adding content already tagged with refimprove from an old version,[11] then claiming that the tag was here for months.[12] See him here claim an article being renamed even though it was not.[13] That's two misleading summaries on the first day after a many month block. If editors like him wish me blocked, then surly my presence was beneficial to the Project. Wiqi(55) 04:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't believe any admin was influenced by that comment. The focus has been on your past actions independent of what personal views others might have of you, and on your past statements saying you understand what 1RR means. Although you are blocked now, the ANI discussion linked in the section below suggests giving you the right to appeal the block in a few months. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, claims of leniency by the above user was mentioned at the ANI report. So obviously it did influence the Admin's presentation of this case there (which I have not given the chance to respond to). Wiqi(55) 15:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps. My take on that discussion was that BWilkins based his decision on the comments of the admins who preceded M2's comment; and I don't believe an admin will pay much attention to complaints about unfairness from someone not involved in the decision to block you (at least I wouldn't). It's unfortunate you didn't get a chance to respond there, but maybe now it's best to save that response for your unblock request. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI

Wiqi55, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Next steps for User:Wiqi55 — advice needed. You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for knowingly breaking 1RR restriction. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

SPI

Could I ask for a sockpuppet investigation while I'm blocked? I never done it before but I believe it may be relevant. I can mention the two user names here. Wiqi(55) 10:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The usual format for WP:SPI reports is to name the sockmaster, list the sockpuppet account(s), list any suspected IP address, and describe the evidence. You can do that on this talk page, and anyone who sees it can submit it to WP:SPI. Checkuser can be requested to verify if the accounts are editing from the same IP address, but be aware that checkuser requests will be declined if it appears the purpose is fishing for evidence, or if one or more of the accounts have been inactive for a month or so. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Amatulic, for a very informative post. Here is my report. Please (anyone) copy what's between the "nowiki" tags to WP:SPI and make sure the syntax is correct. Thanks. Wiqi(55) 10:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

SOCKMASTER: Someone65

{{subst:SPI report |checkuser=no |sock1=Pass a Method |evidence= Wiqi55: User Pass a Method started editing shortly after {{user|Someone65}} was blocked for evasion. I have interacted with this user only recently and noticed that his behavior is identical to Someone65. His evasion of blocks and sanctions also allowed him to use bait and be disruptive towards other editors. The list of shared articles is long and contains the same mixture of peculiar/obscure subjects (e.g., [[Lina Medina]], [[Christophe Lemaitre]], [[Symbols of Islam]], etc). I randomly examined some of his edits in religion-related articles and found identical diffs, e.g., [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim&diff=375271593&oldid=373830763][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim&diff=439832799&oldid=437856588] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_religious_populations&diff=408538300&oldid=408502197][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_religious_populations&diff=438206247&oldid=438206132], or closely related ones, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quba_Mosque&diff=391668864&oldid=374441600][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quba_Mosque&diff=440733985&oldid=437472338], etc. Since the behavioral evidence is rather conclusive, I did not see a need for checkuser. Best. |admincomment= }}

I have created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Someone65 ~Amatulić (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Wiqi(55) 19:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this your account

Is this your other ip account: 50.17.128.255 ,contribs  ??--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not. What he said is rather contentious,[14] and not my style. I don't usually criticize wiki process/admins when I post something. Also note that 50* seems a bit skeptical about the evidence, which is not true at all. I yesterday examined the UserCompare report and noticed even more identical diffs [15] [16], a constant use of lower-case letters in summaries with exceptional cases that are identical, see [17][18], a constant misspelling of the word "grammar" as "grammer" shared between the two accounts, and very similar rollback requests. Much more can be said about the similarity of the content/POVs of his edits (his original research at Quranists, for instance, or his change of "Shi'a" to "Shia", which was a big issue for Someone65), etc. So the behavioral evidence is rather conclusive. Wiqi(55) 21:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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).

Wiqi55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This block is "wrong" as it was based on something I supposedly aknowledged even though I never did. The blocking admin justified his action by claiming that I previously "acknowledged that [I] 100% understood what 1RR meant".[19] However, I've never acknowledged anything similar to that. So unless the blocking admin is willing to provide a diff to prove his claim, this block should be overturned.

As I have explained before the block, this is just a minor misunderstanding of 1RR. Also note that I've never edited any article that falls under WP:1RR, so my familiarity with this policy is limited to what I've seen on this page and at WP:EW. And every 1RR violation I've seen involve adding or removing substantially the same material twice. This led me to think that edits which do not twice add or remove substantially the same material and which could have been made in one go do not count as multiple reverts. Apparently, I was wrong, so I'll just refrain from making multiple reverts of unrelated material in the future.

The other concern raised at ANI was me blanking old discussions from my talk page. I wasn't aware that doing so is against policy/guidelines. Now that someone complained about it (although a friendly notice would've been sufficient), I'll start archiving my talk page properly. I have already reverted the most recent blanking as a good-will gesture. Best, Wiqi(55) 14:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The 1RR restriction is pretty clear; that it wasn't clear to you, as you claim, does not give you carte blanche to make four reverts. If anything, not knowing what a 1R restriction means should be plenty of reason to stay away from anything that might be a violation. A long and tendentious history suggests that this claim of innocence does not hold water. Finally, the removal of talk page material was not a reason for the block (the ANI report does not suggest that whatsoever) so an improvement there does not mitigate the real reason for the block.

If you wish to return to Wikipedia, you will probably need to make a request whose sincerity appears to be indisputable--a request that addresses the reason for the block and takes into account the restriction that led to it as well. Drmies (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2012 (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.

  • I have to take you at your word that you did not fully appreciate your 1RR, but you did accept the restriction. You shouldn't have accepted a restriction you didn't understand. Since we're on the subject; it's your restriction, not an article restriction. By way of explanation 1RR means one revert...not two...not 1-1/8th...one. A very simple, unambiguous concept. Tiderolls 14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It does seem to be a common misunderstanding, as I've seen admins claim that 3RR, for instance, could sometimes be more than 3 reverts (e,g. see Swarm's comment here [20]); but that doesn't seem to be a widely-held view. I also recently came across a very succinct definition of 1RR in talk:Northern Ireland: "WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period)." which I find more helpful than the summary given in WP:1RR. This is why I said that editors who commonly edit articles that fall under 1RR would be more familiar with this policy. Wiqi(55) 15:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't let him fool you ... it happened twice (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
That's not true at all, and this is the jest gist of the matter. The blocking admin keeps repeating these unsubstantiated claims without providing a diff to prove it. Otherwise, could you point out (with a diff) where I was informed before this block that reverts of unrelated material count towards 1RR? Of course you won't, because it didn't happen twice as you claim. Wiqi(55) 23:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you meant "gist"; or, perhaps you were observing that there was some comical aspect to this matter. In any event, to accept that you did not comprehend the concept of one is not gonna fly. Please take to heart Drmies' advice to address the issue of your block and editing restriction. Tiderolls 00:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The "one" isn't the source of my confusion, but rather whether an "edit" should be construed as a "revert". I thought that consecutive edits (when no other editor is reverting these edits) do not count as separate reverts, but only one revert, as these edits could've been as easily made in "one go". I'm not the only to be confused by this, given the link to the talk:3rr I provided earlier. Wiqi(55) 00:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Wiqi55, even if you were right you're not helping your cause. I explained to you, above, what you might want to try if you wish to be unblocked. Instead you continue to say nothing that inspires any confidence in you that would lead to an unblock. The moment you have something new to say we will listen, but I don't want to listen to this broken record anymore. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the blocking admin made a yet another unsubstantiated claim (i.e., lacking diffs) before your comment. But I definitely think that what you wrote merits a longer discussion. I felt your comment missed the fact that the only justification given for this block turned out to be false, namely the claim that "I previously acknowledged that I 100% understood what 1RR meant". As the blocking admin failed to provide a diff to prove this claim, there is no point in dragging this longer. I also wouldn't describe it as carte blanche as I have been blocked for 7 weeks for a minor misinterpretation of 1RR, which I'm not arguing that it was the right interpretation, rather it was good-faith misunderstanding on my part. I also wouldn't take accusations of being tendentious seriously, as the non-admin user that made such accusations at ANI also claimed that he had no direct interaction with me even though I actually criticized a biased paragraph he wrote once at Muhammad that led to its removal. It's just that some editors aren't being fully honest or make mistakes, and admins are better off with a "diff or it didn't happen" approach. Finally, I took the issue of blanking (which was indeed raised at ANI by an admin) as constructive criticism which convinced me that I shouldn't do it. Wiqi(55) 03:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Note also that this out-of-process "indefinite" block was about a 1RR violation, and was justified by claiming that I said something even though I never said it. It doesn't seem right to switch the reason for this block to something else (like tendentious editing) in the middle of a block review. Nevertheless, the cases that EdJohnston brought to ANI were from last November, and all were concerned with a single article. I was reverting an SPA that kept deleting well-cited information using misleading edit summaries (I have since left the article in the state preferred by the SPA with only minor edits). That's hardly something that can be called "a long and tendentious history". Wiqi(55) 07:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice: you need to drop this a minor misinterpretation of 1RR stuff. Its doomed, and so are you as long as you persist in this. You need to (a) admit your mistake, and stop trying to minimise it, and (b) convince people you won't reoffend. The more you keep trying to say it was only a minor matter, the more people will be convinced that you don't take this seriously, and the more likely they'll judge you as likely to reoffend William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually admitted my mistake minutes after it was brought up here and promised not to repeat.[21] I also did it in my unblock request. That's why this feels so rehashed, as there was little to add. However, I did not minimize it. I just thought being blocked indefinitely based on something that I wasn't given prior notice of is an overreaction. Even some admins find it confusing, as I linked above, and based on what an admin just wrote today at WP:EW: "I can't remember if this is a violation of 3RR (does that require reversions of the same thing or not? I can't remember)". This confirms that being given a prior notice or a short block would've been more reasonable. Allowing me to mention my confusion at ANI as EdJohnston intended would have been reasonable too. What actually happened is a block from an admin who made unreasonable and unsubstantiated claims about me being aware of something even though I wasn't. A block like this should be overturned. Cheers. Wiqi(55) 18:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you kidding? You agreed to 1RR on December 8. The restrictions box was placed at the top of your page on Dec 9, and it's still at the top of this page. You've since been blocked TWICE for violating that 1RR. How can you claim "unreasonable and unsubstantiated" or "unaware of"?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course I was aware of my 1RR sanctions. It started as 1RR+warning and then changed to 1RR afterwards. I did violate 1RR once by making the same change twice. However, what I wasn't aware of was that consecutive and unrelated "edits" can be construed as multiple "reverts". I thought consecutive edits count as only one revert, since the same edit is only made once. This was the source of my confusion which I explained minutes after Edjohnston brought the issue here.[22] I just thought that any edit that I make only once in 24 hours does not break 1RR. My understanding was based on how 3RR is generally applied in the community.see the first paragraph here. Now it seems that even some admins at WP:EW and WP:3RR are confused by this. Wiqi(55) 20:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Ah, so your block was not your fault, it was the administrator's fault (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Not quite. The policy should be made clearer that consecutive edits of unrelated material will be counted as multiple reverts (or not). It doesn't seem fair that a user gets blocked for something that even admins at the relevant forums find confusing or unsure about. In your case, you also claimed that I acknowledged something that I never did. And you made a bad faith assumption that I "knowingly" broke 1RR even though that was not what happened. Wiqi(55) 23:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
When you have the link to the 1RR policy at the top of your page, you agreed that you understood it, and you've been blocked for it before, and had it explained to you a half-dozen times, and then you REVERT twice on the same article on March 11 - even though they might have been unrelated areas - you've clearly broken 1RR. There's no use arguing otherwise, or else your unblock will never be successful, as per WP:GAB. The more you argue otherwise, the less likely you'll ever be unblocked. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Nah, it's too simple to argue about. The first paragraph in this diff perfectly explains why this is not blockable offense. Editors do not violate 3RR for making consecutive reverts (manual or using rollback). It takes another editor to show up and edit the same material for this counter to turn to 2,3,4, etc. In the case of 1RR, it's clear to me that the policy page does not mention any subtle differences between 3RR and 1RR. This needs to change, otherwise I was correct in assuming they were the same. Also, I merely "accepted" 1RR (which does allow for an aspect of it to be misunderstood). I never claimed that "I 100% understood what 1RR meant" (which doesn't). Wiqi(55) 05:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand why my daughter has to move a stick for rotating on her stool during lunch, but I have to accept it. The non-issue of having to acknowledge that one knows what the restriction is before accepting it is also a non-starter: it's like complaining that there wasn't a disclaimer when you turned on the TV and found there was nothing but crap on it. This discussion can go on for a while, but you may gather from this ongoing banter that there isn't a single admin who is getting inclined to unblock you. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
A better analogy would be those ads that use Fine Print to trick you into something (but in good faith). It would still be your fault for believing what's in the ad, but in other ways it's their fault too. The notion that if another editor made an intervening edit then a counter starts to turn to 2 even for unrelated reverts is not being communicated properly on WP:3RR (at least that's how I understood what is currently there). I think it should be elaborated upon a bit, mentioned in the box and mentioned again under the 1RR section. But I have other reasons why I should be unblocked, and I believe the ANI report was very one-sided and misrepresented some of the cases mentioned. Wiqi(55) 04:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
It would appear that there will be no WP:GAB-compliant unblock requests coming from here. As a blocked editor may only edit their talkpage for the purpose of unblock, I believe we're unfortunately getting close to having to remove talkpage access. The block has been upheld by independent admins. At some point you need to get past the point "I don't think it was right" and realize it was. There's an old joke about insanity being the act of doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. If it is not your intent to generate an unblock request that comes close to addressing the reasons for the valid block, we will need to remove access to prevent this continued discussion. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I will submit a second unblock request. But what's the problem here? Is discussing the block with the reviewing admin, and other experienced editors, now outside the purpose of an unblock? Wiqi(55) 09:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
You're not discussing the block, you're continuing to claim it was improper: none of the reviewing admins agree. Multiple people have told you so. Either recognize your errors, and put in a GAB-compliant unblock request, or have access removed so that you're no longer wasting the time of people who have better things to do (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:12, 11 May 2012 (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).

Wiqi55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe this block is no longer necessary. I'm now aware that consecutive reverts count as 1 revert, and any revert after intervening edit(s) by other editors will be counted as my 2nd revert. Now that I know of it I will certainly follow this rule at all costs. Best, Wiqi(55) 12:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Request declined based on your refusal of the restriction outlined in the discussion below. Tiderolls 04:37, 13 May 2012 (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.

Do you accept that we will need to reset the clock on your 1rr restriction for a further 6 months as condition of unblocking? If you violate it again, you will be indefinitely blocked, with no chance of unblocking. Do you understand and accept? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The ban is not reasonable (as someone can misconstrue something as a revert). The 6 month clock seems OK as I'm already following a strict BRD anyways. Wiqi(55) 14:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your answer: do you accept the restriction or not? We're not going to have this entire argument again should you violate 1RR again, so the indef with no chance of appeal is part of the package, period. By declining that aspect, you're showing that you STILL don't believe you broke it this time. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it customary for individual admins to impose bans? If so, then I'm OK with it too. And I did unintentionally break 1RR. Wiqi(55) 17:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think that your understanding is such that WP:0RR would be a far better idea. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Why would you say that? That won't be practical, as one of the topics I edit (Islam, the other is History of Science) suffers from a lot of SPA activity (mostly one-time accounts replacing sourced content with unsourced one). Wiqi(55) 18:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I concur with User:Jpgordon. Here's the suggested wording of the proposed restrictions:
Comments/Concerns? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
That looks sensible to me. I'd be open to the restriction being eased to 1RR after a few months if Wiqi55 edits productively. Nick-D (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Support this as well, one reason being that there is absolutely no way to misunderstand the concept of 0RR and so precious admin time will not be wasted in the future dealing with these kinds of long, drawn out unblock requests or explanations. SÆdontalk 01:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
There are other ways to stop these "long, drawn out etc", but I'm OK with this one. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is practical enough in dealing with SPA issues (which are frequent and no one usually reverts for months). What's wrong with my understanding of 1RR now that I'm aware of the intervening edit issue? The original 1RR was also imposed because of trouble in a single article. I was new to editing and didn't know how to deal with edit warriors who refused to use talk. And there won't be any long unblock requests as I will banned, at least for 6 months. Wiqi(55) 05:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
This really is not a negotiation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I already rejected this offer as not practical enough. Even in the quiet articles I edit I often see nationalist POV-pushers changing places of birth, etc. So you're essentially asking me to contribute to articles that contain errors, something that I wouldn't waste my time on. I'm also more familiar with 1RR, and now that I'm aware of intervening edits there is nothing more to miss. Also, given that my understanding of 1RR is inline with WP:3RR, the switch from 1RR to 0RR seems to be unreasonable/unjustified. Wiqi(55) 02:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
No one is "asking you to contribute" anything, on the contrary you're asking for a second chance. If you want that second chance you have to agree to the restrictions as presented. You may not believe they're fair, and that's your right, but from a purely practical standpoint, honestly, you don't really hold any cards here - prove us wrong by agreeing and being a positive contributor, not by arguing here. If you want to see a similar situation in action see User_talk:Iaaasi. SÆdontalk 09:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I have amended the proposed restriction based on input from Nick-D. This is the final amendment. Do not submit an unblock request unless you concur with these very generous restrictions (considering the contents of this talkpage alone). These restrictions are intended to show that you're not going to waste this community's time yet again. Your arguments so far have shown you don't understand the most basic of policies. You're being handed some WP:ROPE. Use it wisely (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll probably agree to the amended proposal. However, my arguments were inline with WP:3RR, namely A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. So there is nothing wrong with my understanding of 1RR, and this is not a valid reason to justify a switch to 0RR. Wiqi(55) 11:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so you're not accepting the restrictions, and thus you're not requesting unblock, which means I can now lock your talkpage? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Your answer doesn't justify the switch to 0RR. Wiqi(55) 11:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Wiqi55 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I agree to the amended proposal. Best, Wiqi(55) 11:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

OK. I hope you can now return to constructive editing without further problems. I look forward to the day when you will have proved that the restrictions are no longer needed, so they can be lifted. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Abu Hatim Muhammad ibn Idris al-Razi

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Abu Hatim Muhammad ibn Idris al-Razi requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mdann52 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, but I must say that article is a horrible mess and needs major improving to meet the standards of an encyclopedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

Proposed deletion of Abu Hatim Muhammad ibn Idris al-Razi

The article Abu Hatim Muhammad ibn Idris al-Razi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Prodded per all the issues brought up by the maintenance tags. It's not an encyclopedia article, it's not notable, it's in no way neutral. It's pretty much a disaster.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Specs112 t c 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Muhammad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abyssinia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Wiqi55

I must thank you for that link. Hilarious and very apt. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) I'm glad that you liked it. Wiqi(55) 11:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Pass a Method

Hi, Wiqi55. I figured that I should let you know that I wholeheartedly agree with your view of Pass a Method. See what I stated here for specifics. 161.139.147.98 (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'm confused, what does Wiqi have to do with Pass a Method? – Lionel (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Wiqi55 is the one who is responsible for that sockpuppet investigation filed against Pass a Method. 176.67.167.252 (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


Deleted hadith

Dear Wiqi,

I was responding to a deletion by an anon, not adding the hadith. The deletion gave no rationale whatsoever, so I decided it was vandalism.

The hadith IS interesting, however, given the contested use of suckling in SA to allow women to interact with men as if they were relatives. Perhaps someone who disliked the SA version of shari'a added the hadith some time ago. Zora (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, SA is the same as anywhere else in this regard :) . My guess that you aren't so well informed about SA. But thanks for keeping an eye on hadith articles. Wiqi(55) 04:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm possibly better informed about SA than the average American. I have also read numerous news articles about SA women trying to evade restrictive rules by giving breastmilk (not suckling) to men with whom they had to work. Of course, it's possible that the cases made the news because they were odd even in SA. Just as it's the weird fatwa that make the news. Zora (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Isa (name)

I'm really not sure that the majority of the recent edits were useful. "The Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān states that Western scholars have been puzzled by the use of ʿĪsā in the Qur'an" is extremely unfortunate and awkward wording. Also, the Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān was moved to the bottom because it is conspicuously not authoritative in Hebrew/Aramaic/Biblical matters, and its way of "explaining" things seems to be to throw a bunch of different incompatible theories onto the wall to see if anything sticks... AnonMoos (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My edits were intended to accurately represent the claims being made in the cited sources (see WP:CHERRYPICKING). But two points: 1) your various attempts to downplay Brill's Encyclopaedia of the Qurʼān (either by moving it to the bottom or hiding parts of its claims and conclusion) is not appropriate. Your assertion that it "conspicuously not authoritative in Hebrew/Aramaic/Biblical matters" is just original research as far as I'm concerned. Otherwise take it to WP:RSN first or cite a source that supports your claim about EQ. Also, the article is about Arabic/Early Islam/Qur'anic matters as well. 2) The same cherrypicking also applies to James A. Bellamy who introduced two theories about the issue, which our article mistakenly renders as just one. In any case, I'd rather continue this discussion in article talk, so please post any further responses there. Wiqi(55) 17:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Also the "Western scholars have been puzzled" claim is also supported by Reynolds (2007). Wiqi(55) 17:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Most of this has been previously discussed at Talk:Isa (name). I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but your edits do not overall seem to me to be too helpful in their current form, and if the people who were involved in previous discussions at Talk:Isa (name) got involved in a new discussion, then presumably the conclusion would be more or less the same as it was last time around... AnonMoos (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wiqi55/2012&oldid=1143385366"