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: 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.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

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

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)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; 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)

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: 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.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

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)

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

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

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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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)

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)

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)
 * Are you the same person behind ? 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)
 * 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)
 * Saqib Ali Qualifies.He was there originally--Inayity (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Explain why Shahid Khan doesn't qualify?--22 Male Cali (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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  &#38;L  18:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  &#38;L  19:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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  &#38;L  19:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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  &#38;L  10:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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." . 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)
 * You were warned in User_talk:22_Male_Cali. Toddst1 (talk) 05:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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 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)

Unblock two

 * 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's Ponyo bons mots 19:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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  .  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)
 * I'm not ranting. you blocked me for 72 hours when i didn't even violate any rule of wikipedia, 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)
 * Sorry, but you could have very easily responded to the SPI on this page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Toddst1, can you explain what is this and this?--22 Male Cali (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)