User talk:AHLM13

Welcome!
Hello, AHLM13, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting started
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=610324747 your edit] to Covenant-breaker may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * used by Bahá'ís to refer to a particular form of what some might call "heresy". Actually it refers to disunity: "The specific mission of Bahá'u'lláh relates to world unity. Since

Removal of image from Greater Nepal
Why did you remove this image from this article? It doesn't seem to be wrong there. ASCII-002 I Notify Online  12:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This one is better File:Nepal - Location Map (2013) - NPL - UNOCHA.svg AHLM13 (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This image shows the present Nepal but the article is about Greater Nepal. So, the image kept there is about Greater Nepal and it is correct, isn't it? ASCII-002 I Notify Online  12:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Your Recent Editing Activity
Hi. I notice that you have recently been editing a great many articles, frequently reverting changes made by anonymous IP addresses. Whilst it is certainly the case that anonymous editors sometimes vandalise pages, it is fairly clear that you have been deleting a great many perfectly reasonable edits too. It's quite easy to see from the timeline of your edits that you are making these edits without any thought. For example, at 16:41 on 9 June 2014 you made three edits in a minute, deleting entirely reasonable information that had been included by an anonymous editor with a blameless track-record and, evidently, some special expertise on Nicaragua. Earlier, at 16:31 on 9 June 2014 you made five edits in the space of sixty seconds. All of these edits had the effect of deleting reasonable information added by an anonymous editor who, though probably a little too enthusiastic, appears to have a genuine interest in and expertise about fictional cartoon characters. Where information is not supported by references, you should not delete it unless it is obviously vandalism, but should request references and citations that support the information.

The problem is that these are not isolated cases. At 16:35 you deleted an edit that contributed track timings for the The Civil War (album); at 16:29 you restored text that is a matter of pure opinion (and thus shouldn't be included in Wikipedia) to our article on Nasson College, presumably simply because the edit that deleted it was performed anonymously. There are many, many more. You have a consistent pattern of deleting the work of anonymous editors, irrespective of its usefulness. As an editor of Wikipedia, it is incumbent on you to assume that other editors, whether registered or anonymous, are acting in good faith. You are making a great many mistakes, and actively damaging Wikipedia.

Please would you stop your unhelpful editing activity as soon as possible. Your current course of action is disruptive, and is unlikely to lead to a positive outcome either for you or for this project on which we work. Thank you.

RomanSpa (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

For Information
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * You can see the discussion here. RomanSpa (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Assalamualykum, I think you are muslim. How do you know Mawlana Abdul Qayum? The article's title is not very important, but the important thing is that the reliable sources deleted. This User:GorgeCustersSabre is a vandal. If you see this article from 7 of May you will undertand everything. He deleted all references and contents. He also deleted his private life and also that mawlana akram nadwi is studying with him. Then he added all meaningless citation needed and this BLP Tag. He also deleted some categories. Can you look also here, where he deleted something. Moreover this User:GorgeCustersSabre for another time deleted his name from  Actually i know that M Abdul Qayum  finished his Phd in the SOAS. Please can you add all sources which was deleted from this racist user and undo all his revision. If you do so you will be awarded either here and in the hereafter. Please do it for Mawlana Abdul Qayum and not for me. And can you reply me quickly. Thanks Wassalam 86.157.22.98 (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

you are in trouble
Hi ahlm13, i do not know why you are not answer me and delete the things that i wrote. The vandal gorgecurtesabte he deleted for another time the things that you wrote in sheikh abdul qayum. He deleted also my things. Can you add that s abdul qayum finished his phd? I will help you. Be careful in this talk an admin want block you. 109.154.90.200 (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Thank you, for letting me know about this ridiculous conversation. However, assume good faith and refrain from making personal attacks on other wikipedians. AHLM13 talk 18:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk page stuff
Hey, just a quick note on talk page posts. When you leave a comment, you should indent your comments with colons, using one more colon than the comment to which you are replying. There's a helpful page at WP:INDENT with more info about how to do this. Using indentation can really help in making the talk pages easier to read and follow for everyone. Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

how are you
Hello friend, how are you? i hope you are fine. Sometime you use wikipedia and sometime you disappear, why? I have find that you did not undo gorgecurtesabre and ravensfire edits, but why? Because you are worried about edit warring, it seem that you are not brave. As I said before,then you did not add that s abdul qayum completed his phd, but you did other things, why? Anyway, leave it. There is also another article, elm, where gorgecurtesabre and usamahward vandals destryed it. Gorgucurtesabre wants to have many edits, infact he did more tha 20 thousand edits in wikipedia. Instead usamahward want be elm' boss, and he want to do whatever he want. He deleted all imams and abdul bari's name, then in "Prominent visitors" he moved mawlana sayeedi, yashir qadi and saad nomani's name from "imams" to "others notable visitors". All of them are vandalism. I leave you this article, please do something and try to help this article. Unfortunately, i can not wikipedia always, but i can user wikimedia for image like here. Tru to return quickly and try to look and user wikipedia for many times. Spend your times to do good things. Thank you, and see you! 109.157.151.48 (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference cleanup on Shaykh al-Islām
You added a couple of references to the Shaykh al-Islām article that weren't correctly formatted. I was able to fix one, but I couldn't find anything on the other reference. Specifically, the reference named "CJA1983" referring to Maududi and the Islamic State. I'm assuming this is a book, so you should be able to use the cite book template and use the other two references that use that template as examples. Right now, it's impossible to verify that reference. A google search using that book name did not turn up any results. At a minimum, please add the ISBN number for the book so it can be found. Thanks. Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Fix your sources again. As I mentioned above, I cannot find that source because your reference style isn't standard and doesn't contain enough information to locate the source to verify it.  Please fix it.  Even a google book link would help. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

3RR and talk page notice
AHLM13, at this point we're both at or beyond the 3RR limit on several pages. Your edits have been contested by editors so you need to get consensus on the article talk page before reverting to them. You haven't done so. One of the issues was extensively discussed several months ago in fact with consensus to not include your version. I've started several discussions on the talk pages highlighting specific problems. I've left you pointers to them. You haven't bothered to discuss this at all. Please read WP:3RR carefully. This is your warning. On your next revert, I will file a 3RR report about this. I may also end up blocked as an edit war takes two people but you need to start finding references to support your claims. Good references, not blogs or puff pieces. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. I' am not sure whether you're still alive or not. I am perfectly fine and I am not afraid. I’ve already told you that I am very occupied, and Wikipedia isn’t my job. Actually, I'm fed up and tired of engaging in edit war on shaykh's article. As for the mosque, even this has been ruined by you and others. Be that as it may, I'll try to expand this article.

Just for curiosity's sake, are you really capable to contribute all of those languages? I suspect you utilize automatic translators (I can see from your english), surely you aren't capable to contribute with an INTERMEDIATE level of english language, as you've written on your userpage. AHLM13 talk 21:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

read up on WP:VERIFY and WP:BURDEN
On the London Central Mosque article, you reverted the Citation Needed tag saying "go to the park and have a look". Sorry, doesn't work that way. That's your opinion and your view and it doesn't mean much on Wikipedia - it's called original research. You need to have a good source, that meets the reliable source criteria that explicitly makes that claim that it's among the largest mosque's in Europe. That's it - that's all that's needed and I'll be happy. But you've got to have that source, it needs to be a good source and it needs to say that it's among the largest in Europe or really similar to that. Until you have a source that supports that claim, the citation needed tag needs to stay. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW - I helped you out a bit and started a talk page discussion on this to see if someone else might be able to find a source for this claim since you don't seem willing to support it. Your welcome. Ravensfire ( talk ) 20:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not have any anything versus you. Please do not revert those edits again. I do not have sufficient time to utilise wikipedia. The mosque is one of the largest, Abdul Qayum would be one of the greatest scholars, and the mosque serves the largest community. Everybody knows these and some sources have been provided. Please these pages. Cheers. AHLM13 talk 20:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * If you don't have the time to find sources, then don't add the claims. "Everybody knows" means the sources should be simple for you to find. You've been pointed to the talk page to discuss this but you haven't bothered.  If you REALLY think a source is good enough, go to the reliable source noticeboard and ask there.  You've been warned about edit-warring below, please take that seriously. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please leave me alone. What's wrong with you? Why should you consume your time on editing those articles. Even if you'right, leave them. Thank you! AHLM13 talk 21:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * AHLM13, the issue is you are making unsupported claims. That needs to stop.  It's as simple as that.  I see by your actions you don't care.  I'm sorry to see that.  I've got a meeting, so I'd like to give you an opportunity to revert your last edits and discuss this on the article talk page before I file a report on WP:EWN. Your decision on this. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 21:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ravensfire, regardless to the mosque's one, I haven't reverted, even though it should be. Others should be fine. AHLM13 talk 21:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry it went to this, but without the willingness to address concerns raised by others, ignoring sourcing requirements and no discussions in an attempt to seek a consensus on the matters raised, there is no other option. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Khalifa Ezzat sourcing
AHLM13, I took a quick glance at this article and there are some sourcing problems that existed from before your edits. You added a couple of sources in the education section and I appreciate that. I removed an existing source which is a blog and those rarely make good sources for Wikipedia. See the WP:SPS page for blogs in general. For material about a living person (often called WP:BLP here), blogs are even more restricted for their use - see the WP:BLPSPS page. On top of that, going to that page gives an error message and there really doesn't look like that blog has anything. I've removed the blog (used twice as a source). Any chance you might know of a better source for what the blog was used for? I think it was the last two sentences in the lead.

I'd love to find some sourcing for the rest - where the articles were published and ISBN numbers for the translations and books would be awesome. If you know of any, would you mind adding it? Even just bare links or raw ISBN and I can clean it up later. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 23:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at London Central Mosque
As an admin, I have studied the open complaint about you at WP:AN3. The most obvious case of your edit warring is at London Central Mosque. You want it to be [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Central_Mosque&diff=647587982&oldid=640131116 one of the largest mosques in Europe] but you don't want to provide a citation. What is worse, you remove the 'citation needed' tag, and you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ravensfire&diff=prev&oldid=648215553 accuse Ravensfire of following you around]. This has been going on since 20 February. I am considering blocking your account unless you will accept restoration of the citation needed tag and give up this war. If you will agree to this, you can reply at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * @EdJohnston, I gave up. I haven't undid that edit. Thanks.  AHLM13  talk 11:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have closed [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=648327342#User:AHLM13_reported_by_User:Ravensfire_.28Result:_Warned.29 the AN3 report] with a warning, but without a block based on your agreement to concede the point about London Central Mosque being one of the largest, a claim which was unsourced. Nonetheless you have another issue to deal with at Abdul Qayum (imam). You have stated he is one of the most influential Muslim scholars of Great Britain but your sources appear to be inadequate. Others have pointed this out on the talk page. If this matter is discussed further you will be expected to defer to the WP:Verifiability policy. If you have questions about the usability of a source, you can ask at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverting User's Edits to Own TP
Users are always allowed to modify their unblock requests and other items on their TP as long as they are not libelous or attacking. Remember WP:OWNTALK. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!)
 * Diff

March 2015
Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Tariq Jameel‎, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Ascetic Rosé   03:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources
AHLM13, please take some time to read up on reliable sources and identifying reliable sources. You used the promo blurb for an event as a source. There's zero change that meets the criteria for a reliable source. Blurbs for events are entirely promotional and self-serving, especially for significant claims. Using a blurb like that to say X is a member of Y board is okay. Anything beyond that is not okay. On top of that, the source you gave would be time-dependent and would disappear after the event resulting in a dead source that still couldn't be used. Please, take a bit of time to learn how to identify good reliable sources. If you've got a question about a source, I encourage you to use the Reliable Source Noticeboard, explaining the source, where you're using it and how you'll use it to get advice from other editors. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * And expecting the usual reaction, I've created a talk page section specifically to address the sources you used. The talk page section is Talk:Abdul Qayum (imam).  Please discuss the issues raised there before reverting.  You'll note that as a compromise I've left the claim in the article hoping good sources can be found.  It's tagged as needing a cite because it does need a good source for that claim. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 20:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tariq Jameel. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. ''The popular spelling is "Maulana", and not "Mawlana". The content you removed is an information supported by reliable sources.'' - Ascetic Rosé   00:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Reply
Wa alaikum Assalam. Thank you for your mail. I've read it. However, I prefer privacy.

Meanwhile, please familiarize yourself with WP:VANDAL and WP:CIVIL. - Ascetic Rosé   00:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I see you were warned well previously by an administrator, on 23 June 2014, against using the word "vandal" so frequently. But I see this again from you. It seems you have made it a habit.

If you use it one more time, I'll have to report. - Ascetic Rosé   01:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

User:AsceticRose, what a shame! Even you were blocked from editing! --  AHLM13  talk 18:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Asian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RA. 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) 08:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Mittal
The source you are using from 2007 only claims Britain. If that's all the source says, that's all we can say on Wikipedia. If you find a better source, especially one more current, that says wealthiest Hindu and Indian person in Britain, Europe and/or Western World, go for it! But until then, the article has to reflect exactly what the source claims. Also, when you're using a source that 8 years old for something like wealth ranking, you really need to date it. Those rankings change easily, especially given we've had a world-wide recession between 2007 and now. We need to include the year of that ranking for WP:NPOV purposes. Not putting it would be to push a POV. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 13:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

There is not any richest person like him. I don't care about the sources. Everybody knows that he'd be richest Asian.--  AHLM13  talk 14:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's right. I should remember that you are a WP:RS after all.  You always are correct, never POV push and never, ever exaggerate sources.  Oh wait.  Damn.  April Fools was a few days ago.  I guess I'll just have to say that was sarcasm.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 14:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

April fool is created for the purpose to offend Muslims--  AHLM13  talk 17:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please don't do this again
Please don't do this again. Telling an editor who's reverted one of your edits to stay off an article is absolutely unacceptable. Fortunately, you said that to an apparently experienced editor who will treat your demand with all the respect it deserves, but you could easily scare off a new editor which would be unfortunate. You do not control articles, nor does anyone else. You need to use the talk page for discussion when an edit of yours gets reverted rather than just revert over and over. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 12:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Hello, I'm Ravensfire. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Birmingham Central Mosque that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Don't insult other editors in the edit summary. You need to focus on the edits and how the edit comply with the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia and stop focusing as much on the editors. '' <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please reconsider
Hello AHLM13. I am writting this in relation to two of your edits and summaries here &. Maybe you are unfamiliar but per WP:BURDEN which is policy, you may only re-add information if it is accompanied by a reliable source. This has not been done. Secondly and on a more serious note, the comments in the edit summary constitute a personal attack against GorgeCustersSabre. I ask you to reconsider your actions and in the future please refrain from attacking an editor. Rather the focus should be on content. Regards. Mbcap (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Claim re East London Mosque is not in the reference cited
You have cited Kratke's Transnationalism and Urbanism (p 145) for a claim that had been disputed before in many places on Wikipedia. You have used that citation in several articles: London, Islam in England, Islam in the United Kingdom, Religion in England, Religion in the United Kingdom and East London Mosque. The reference does not support the claim, that the East London Mosque was "the first mosque in the European Union to be permitted to broadcast the adhan" - it just briefly recounts disputes over allowing the adhan in 1986. On being reverted, you have re-inserted the claim, in one case with the edit summary "see the source" and in other cases with no edit summary. Do read WP:BRD; you need to open discussion on talk pages to justify your edits when they are corrected or reverted, not simply click undo. I have now opened those discussions. NebY (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Final warning
Since you were advised not to use the word vandal any more, you haven't used that, but your personal attacks on other editors in talk-pages and in edit summaries now seem to cross the limit which constitute a severe breach of one of Wikipedia’s core policies, namely civility. I’ve hardly seen a foul-tongued editor like you. Equally disturbing is your stubbornness to not listen to others' repeated advices to comply with Policies and guidelines in case of editing articles.

Hadith says that it is the misuse of tongue that will take people in hell in more numbers than any other vices. Theologically, it is quite prohibited to call other Muslims munafiq or similar things. Never assume a self-righteous manner. Eventually, you have to take into account Wikipedia policies, and behave yourself if you want to continue editing here.

Take this as final notice. If any more abusive language is issued from you, either in talk-pages or in edit summaries, either in English or in other language (as is here), or your stubbornness to ignore Policies and guidelines continues, it may result in others' requesting a topic ban for you.

While your contributions are appreciated, you are also required to understand others' concerns. Anyone can't always edit in their own way.

Everybody related here is requested to see  Community bans and restrictions. Thanks. - Ascetic Rosé   01:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

@Ascetic, you're right that it's prohibited to call others Munafiq, but in this case I was right. Look at the differences between your contributions and GorgeCustersSabre's one. It's simple to understand who would be Mu'min and who would be Munafiq.--  AHLM13  talk 10:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. After calling someone a munafiq (hypocrite) in an edit summary ('I want a Munafiq like you to find reliable sources'), you have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AHLM13&diff=655659135&oldid=655627863 continued to use that terminology] here on your talk page. Your page is on my watchlist because you previously had to be warned for making unsourced changes, per an AN3 complaint. Name-calling against people who ask you to provide sources for your edits fits into that pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Let’s have a fresh start
So, there has been a good deal of hurly-burly here in the past few days. Ok, forget about that and let you have a fresh start, this time in a proper fashion. I believe you've got new insight in these days.

Regarding your munafiq point in your last comment, I again say that, unless it is a very special case, it is totally prohibited to call anyone munafiq, first because terms like this are mainly used in academic and theological fields to distinguish certain types of people (and not for general name-calling), and second because God hasn't given us the power to look into anyone's heart to know exactly…. And hence, He prohibits us to use such terms in general purpose. For example, the term autistic people is used to distinguish certain medically conditioned people, and not to insult them by calling them by that mane.

In Islamic history, Abdullah Ibn Ubay was the most publicly known munafiq, often making plots against the newly established Islamic state. And that was a real-life situation. Yet there is no record that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) did ever call him munafiq. The Prophet even led Ubay’s funeral prayer, and furnished Ubay's dead body with his own shirt. Why all this? It was the noble character and the great civility that the Prophet himself cultivated and taught us the same. And we? Upon Mecca conquest, he, with a smiling face and without slightest hesitation, forgave all those who for 23 years rebelled against him and planned to murder him. And we? We readily ignore these teachings at slightest provocations.

We are here, on earth, to behave well with ALL human beings, irrespective of their caste, color, and ideology. We are absolutely not here to decide who is an infidel, or who is a believer, or who is a munafiq. This belongs to God. Yes, everybody has there own personal understanding/perception as to who is who, but that should not cross the limit.

And, we are not here on Wikipedia to categorize who is who. We are here to improve articles. If an editor deletes any unsourced claim/data, or demands for a reliable source for the content added by you, you can't blame them for that. These are according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's your duty to provide a reliable source for your content, and not just a source. You need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

If you still think that somebody's approach is problematic, there are ways to handle them. Name-calling is not the option. I see others are very cooperative with you. So, you should not miss that last chance. Thanks. - Ascetic Rosé   17:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I also admit that I was a little bit rude initially. I do apologize for that. I believe AHLM13 will consider. - Ascetic Rosé   00:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Jazakallahkhaair my brother in Islam  for having taught some lessons. I apologise as well and ask forgiveness to Allah azza wa jal. We need to work together in Wikipedia, and one of the main purpose is giving Da'wa. I will send an email, please respond at that. Shukran --  AHLM13  talk 15:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

 * Do not revert without any legitimate reasons, my edit on Muhammad Iqbal were not the vandalism, I am the main edito of this article, how can I do that. Read the policies before reverting. If you have any concerns discuss on the talk page. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It was vandalism. What do you mean by "main editor"? Have you bought this article? --  AHLM13  talk 15:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Muhammad Iqbal. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Justice007 (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

A note on the term "vandalism"
AHLM13, please take a few moments to read WP:VANDAL. Vandalism on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning that's often different from how it's used in other places. Basically, unless it's blatant vandalism that's intended to harm Wikipedia, you should describe edits as vandalism. In particular, edits made in good faith by another editor that you disagree with should NEVER be called vandalism. Using the term incorrectly can be considered a personal attack, especially if it's repeated. For example, this edit is clearly not vandalism as Wikipedia uses the term. Please, be very careful with how you're using the term going forward. Thanks, <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 21:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, read TideRolls comment on my talk page about their comment below and mine - I appreciated his comment and the sentiment behind it that they didn't want to appear like they were piling on. Please do consider that someone totally unconnected from this is also noticing some of the same concerns that others have raised.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 03:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Iqbal
You did not revert vandalism with this edit. Please acquaint yourself with WP:Vandalism; to apply that description to an edit that is not is improper. Additionally, please read WP:Edit warring and WP:BRD. Once you have been reverted you are obligated to take your case to the article talk page to seek consensus.  Tide  rolls  21:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It appears as a vandalism, although she is an experienced user. --  AHLM13  talk 09:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you made a comment in this edit summary that didn't seem very civil. Referring to a user's good-faith edits as vandalism may lead to their feeling unfairly attacked. JimRenge (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Your recent editing history at Sayeeda Baroness Warsi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&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.''You are adding information to a WP:BLP article that is not supported by the sources and are not discussing the change after reverted. If you go past 3 reverts, you WILL be reported to the 3RR noticeboard for this. '' <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 15:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

ZORDANLIGHTER ko phansane ka sabse aasan tarika

http://www.google.com/intl/bn/inputtools/try/

http://www.google.com/intl/pa/inputtools/try/

http://www.google.com/intl/ur/inputtools/try/

تو نہیں جانتا میں کون ہوں --ਜੋਰਦਾਨਲਿਘ੍ਟਰ (talk) 08:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * GO AWAY, HINDUSTAN KA BACCHA! --  AHLM13  talk 10:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI
JimRenge (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Muhammad Iqbal. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Tide  rolls  13:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you edit this article again without a consensus being reached first, longer block periods will result.  Tide  rolls  13:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Tide rolls, you are right, we need to do a better consensus. Pls look at the differences between my edits and his one on that article. If you see, I accepted most of his contributions on that article and I added myself things that he wrote. But on the contrary, he is not accepting nothing of my edit, he's just reverting all my edits, even WP:LINK. He reverted all other editors' and IPs' contributions. It appears that he does not care at all about my edits. In another article i corrected a sentence, but he undid even that one be telling that I am spoiling the article EVERYWHERE. How can he tell this? It is not true. After the expiration of the block, he needs to tell me for each why he does not agree on that. Thanks and best regards. --  AHLM13  talk 17:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Azizul Haque (scholar)
Please refer to specifics when pointing influences and "influenced" in the infobox. "Entire India and Pakistan" is vague term. Also refer to the talk page for general info.113.11.48.198 (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Azizul Haque (scholar)
Your revrting edits to Azizul Haque (scholar) may tantamount to vandalism because you have been removing crucial edits and dead links tags.

Influences and influenced
"There is no citations given for "influences" and people influenced. The "influenced" cannot be "Entire India and Bangladesh" because they are not personalities.

Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani was a proponent of the Salafi movement, I doubt he could have hardly have taught or spoke to a Bangladeshi Muslim scholar of Deobandithought, let alone influenced him. Please cite the works of Azizul Haque (scholar) for reference." In this regard I welcome you to see this link, a Facebook page dedicate to his memory: https://www.facebook.com/almahadul/posts/446476792132835 It seems the articles previous claim, (and your insistence on it) that he was influenced by Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani or Ahmed Deedat is unsupported, even in his most lofty praises.

With regard to honorifics
Please see the style and honorifics on the page Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani if want to have a general idea how the standard is.

NOTICE/ REQUEST
FOR ADDITIONAL INFO SEE: Talk:Azizul Haque (scholar). DO NOT MAKE FURTHER REVERTS WITHOUT MAKING A CONSENSUS, AS YOU MAY SUBJECT TO A BLOCK. Messiaindarain (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Dear AHLM13, this is a warning in respect to your recent edits on Azizul Haque (scholar). Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. If you do not improve content without citing them and tend to be hagiographic, I am afraid this will be brought to the notice of the admins.Messiaindarain (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Creating an article
Creating an article is easy. In the search box at top right, type the article name (here Murder of Abdul Hadi Arwani) you want to create, and search. The search will say ''There were no results matching the query. You may create the page "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx".'' Clicking the red link will take you to the page-creation edit box. Type the contend and save. It's done.

For your current article, I'm leaving a link here: Murder of Abdul Hadi Arwani (just click it and follow the procedure mentioned above.). Don't forget to provide more details and sources.

Thanks. - Ascetic Rosé   00:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Friend Ascetic, can you creates this article on my behalf? I will just add something. --  AHLM13  talk 16:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I can't, first because I'm not familiar with the topic and have no interest in it, and second because I don't have enough time to do so. Thanks. - Ascetic Rosé   03:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Asalam walykum
I see you had toruble with this user named Gorge. I am having same issue with him on Talk:Barelvi. Khanyusufkhalil (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

w salam, I will try to have a look!--  AHLM13  talk 15:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

SPI
You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/AHLM13. reported you. --  nafSadh did say 04:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Hello, I'm NebY. I noticed that you made a change to an article, East London Mosque, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NebY (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop edit-warring over this again. Your original change ("the first ...") for this was reverted, and with some discussion on the talk page a modified version ("one of the first...") did get consensus on the talk page.  Your most recent change to Europe instead of Britain doesn't have that consensus.  Please try to get consensus on the talk page - continuing the edit war will just end up with you blocked again which doesn't help anything.  If you can't get consensus, look through the dispute resolution options. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Request, advice and suggestions
Hello, please stop making controversial moves of pages without attempting to obtain community consensus. I noticed you have moved the articles Sayeeda Warsi, Baroness Warsi ‎and Pola Uddin, Baroness Uddin. You said here that you did this because you didn't know about WP:NCPEER. However, it appears you have gone and done the same thing on the article British Bangladeshi, again without making any attempt to discuss the issue first.

Firstly, please note ignorance is not an excuse; making edits against established policies and guidelines creates unnecessary work for other editors to then spend time in fixing your errors. If you are unsure of something then take the time to research the relevant answer and if you can't do that than just ask another editor for help rather than acting on your own unsupported, misguided, independent judgement.

Secondly, please avoid edit warring such as the one you appear to be currently engaged in on East London Mosque judging by your edits here here and here, and abide by the WP:CONSENSUS that has developed on the talk page. You need to use the article talk page to discuss the issue at first instance and not continuously revert other editors edits, especially in this case against the consensus which appears to have been established.

Finally, instead of citing WP:AGF or WP:NPA whenever you're faced with confrontation, try to take the criticism you receive on board, especially from the latest ANI of a few. I suggest you acknowledge all the points raised by other editors. You have been blocked a few of times already as well being warned several times, should you fail to take heed then it is likely that you will receive a more lengthy ban next time. Tanbircdq (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!
HAHAHA! --  AHLM13  talk 16:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Discuss at ANI, not my talk page to resolve issues between yourselves
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  nafSadh did say 18:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Some advice for when you're reverted
Hi. Just a quick bit of advice. Per WP:BRD, if you add material (including images) to an article and are reverted, you should raise the issue on the talk page and try to reach consensus for the addition, rather than counter-reverting. If you keep doing the latter, I fear that you will get blocked from editing sooner or later. It's worth remembering that there is no deadline on Wikipedia, so it's best to discuss things to gain consensus. It might be a bit more time-consuming, but it will pay off in the longer term. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Friend User:Cordless Larry, can you write about this issue at London's talk page? Thanks. --  AHLM13  talk 20:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to propose the addition of the image of the mosque to that article, I suggest that you do that on the talk page yourself. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
تیرا جننہ بنظر کی پھددی فاد رہا ہے

Redjunipertree (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>

edit warring on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washiqur Rahman Babu
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Otto (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Otto, one should not be too hasty in such cases. ANI is not for such trifle issues. It is for long-standing, more serious issues. If you would just click the Merchant of Asia account, you would see that the user is banned for sock-puppetry. And as Guy said, yes, It is entirely legitimate to delete [yes]votes from sockpuppets. - Ascetic Rosé   03:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. See WP:EVADE for where it's allowed.  Alternatively, you can strikethrough their comment and add a comment that they are a blocked sock.  Comments like that will be ignored by the closing admin, but can be a compromise if someone keeps restoring the sock's comment rather than edit-war over something like that. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 03:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AHLM13 is edit-warring with me, not with user Bazaan. I argued at the noticeboard that the comment was good faith. Therefore was the deletion not legitimate but partisan. Guy's comment is rhetoric. Otto (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

what happened? I missed everything. --  AHLM13  talk 16:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

So what's with the reverts?
Okay, care to explain yourself? <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 15:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It was not me. Why do not you understand? --  AHLM13  talk 17:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I posted this when I started to get 7-8 notifications from yoru account reverting my edits, so I posted this. I then looked at your recent contributions and saw that all the reverts used Twinkle and were reverted as vandalism.  You do have a habit of using the TW vandalism revert in a content dispute when it's not vandalism, but not like this.  Your personal attacks in the past were a bit more subtle than what was done here.  You need to read the ANI section on this - something did happen to your account and it wasn't a remote hack.  If you check the "Keep me logged" box on login, all that has to happen is for someone to get access to that computer and they are logged in as you.  I'm not sure what happens next in cases like this.  You probably want to read WP:COMPROMISED and think about the comments there and the comments Mike V left on the ANI section.  Sorry this happened to you, it can be unnerving.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Favonian (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please User:Favonian unblock me.--  AHLM13  talk 17:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

* I knew of AHLM13 recently during a discussion on Bengali people. I am not a huge fan of his edits and sometimes he seems to be troublesome. That doesn't mean he is a vandal and recent edits from his account was very unlike him and he could be a victim of password hack. He can be given a chance.  nafSadh did say 19:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, you are check user confirmed. Unless someone logged into your computer remotely, those edits were made by you; and in that case, I am very disappointed.  nafSadh did say 19:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To be very precise, the CU confirmed that someone used AHLM13's account to make those edits from their computer. They can't say or determine who that person is though.  Unfortunately, that's also true now, hence WP:COMPROMISED.  If you check the "Keep me logged in" box on the login page, anyone who has access to your computer can edit Wikipedia as you.  Walk away from your PC for a bit without locking it and it's really simple.  Roommate, friend, roommate's friend, etc. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 19:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Favonian, User:Only and others. Listen to me. Right now it is like 2:30, and between this time someone yesterday used my account. I was actually working in that time. Today I am free. An user give me a suggestion to do not click ""Keep me logged"", but I usually log out from the computers. Even if I leave my Wiki account open in front of everyone, none will touch this because none of my friend and relatives know how to use Wikipedia and they are also kind to me. Also, if they want to use my account, they could have edited their favourite articles, but they did not do. The hacker who log on into my account, seemed as an experienced wikipedian, as he started to use twinkle and answer quickly in my talkpage, and I also do not offend and swear people as the hacker did. Moreover, as I said before, I could not have access on my account, because there was written that my PASSWORD IS WRONG. Therefore I changed my password following the steps on Wikipedia rules. This means that somehow the hacker changed my password, but I do not understand how he that, because for changing the password you need to write even your OLD password, and my password was very strong and none knows it. But, my password was the same of password of my Google Email. Through this email, I emailed some wikipedians. I suspect a little bit a wikipedian named Justice007, because one time I emailed him but he did not answer, and maybe he dicovered my password somehow by my email. Otherwise maybe another user named UniversalTiger, who tried to offend me previously and left a message on my talkpage in Urdu language. I do not know what A CHECKUSER can see, but I ask the check user User:Mike V if he is able to check if yesterday between this time (2.30 and 3.30) there were IPs like 112... or 5... If so, please tell me quickly. If someone unblock me, I will find other proofs. Thanks--  AHLM13  talk 13:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When I performed the check, it showed me that the vandalism edits from this account were coming from the same IP(s) and the same device(s) used for constructive edits. The technical evidence is inconsistent with your hacker story. Please stop accusing other users of gaining access to your account without any substantial evidence. <b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b> • <b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b> 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

User:CosmicEmperor, what are you doing here? Many people is helping me, instead you are still like before. You are still disturbing me.--  AHLM13  talk 19:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear, User:Mike V, so do you mean that there were any IP like 5... or 112.. Actually I am not accusing people, but I suspect them. I will try to find other evidences. But can you tell me how the hacker did change my password (which none that and it was even difficult)? Can you also tell me what password did he/she write (if you want, you can sent to my email)? But now what can I do? Someone has to unblock me. --  AHLM13  talk 19:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No one HAS to unblock you. Your story isn't adding up so no one is going to unblock you.  A checkuser has the ability to see technical evidence that shows what IP address and machine was being utilized at the time of edits.  Mike V is saying the the IP address and machine used for these edits in question is the same exact IP address and machine that have been used for your other edits.  Your whole explanation does not make sense.  only (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming good faith and unblocking this user. I can give a detailed rationale and discuss my checkuser findings if anyone wishes, but my conclusions are that it is entirely possible that the only mistake AHLM13 is making is trusting his WP:BROTHER. Someone messed with his account for an hour or so. If I'm wrong, this account will start misbehaving again, and someone will turn it right back off. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adopting a different approach Jpgordon, obviously an editor can be reblocked for misbehavior.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ditto the above concern. Read WP:NOTVAND. My edit to Imam was certainly not vandalism. Yet, you reverted  using Twinkle with the edit summary Vandalism. Per WP:TWINKLEABUSE:"One must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies or risk having one's account blocked. Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." unblocked you  just 4 days ago. You've been blocked  for misuse of Twinkle in the past. Finally, if you examine your revert, you'll see that you restored significant errors, including missing files, as I noted in my edit summary. I am going to undo your erroneous revert, and urge you not to edit war to reintroduce errors. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This revert is also an inappropriate use of Twinkle] also [[WP:NOTVAND|incorrectly describes your edit as reverting vandalism when it is really edit warring to restore your preferred version against talk page consensus:
 * The edit you reverted is not vandalism, yet your edit summary states that it is
 * The edit you reverted included an edit summary Name. Please see 'Talk' page, pointing to a talk page discussion
 * The talk page Talk:Nusrat_Ghani includes a discussion, where you did not choose to participate, but in which there is a WP:CONSENSUS of three editors that the edit you reverted was correct.
 * I am thus going to undo your revert, as I did the prior one I noted. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * AHLM13: you really need to pay attention to the suggestions and advice you're getting here; my unblock did not take into consideration your own questionable behavior, and does not excuse it. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

HI User:Jpgordon, I hope you are fine. I am not doing any vandalism with twinkle. --  AHLM13  talk 15:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying you are, but you need to go to this noticeboard and explain yourself, or you'll be blocked from using Twinkle. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Jpgordon, I did. --  AHLM13  talk 16:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe my explanation of your incorrect actions were very clear. In summary:
 * You edit warred on two articles to restore your preferred version.
 * Both of those edits had edit summaries stating you were reverting vandalism.
 * In one edit, you re-introduced errors you yourself introduced (example: red error "thumb|280px|left|An Imam presiding over prayer, North Africa.")
 * In the other, you reverted against consensus on the article's talk page.
 * And now, in what appears to be an instance of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, you edit warred to revert my correction, ignoring my careful explanation and advice not to do so. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The main problem raised there is what is, and is not, vandalism. You are describing edits as vandalism when they don't meet Wikipedia's definition.  Please read through WP:NOTVANDAL carefully.  It doesn't matter what you think vandalism is here - you MUST go by Wikipedia's definition.  Using the term outside that criteria is often considered a personal attack.  Basically, unless it's obvious garbage or nonsense, don't call it vandalism.  And by obvious garbage, I mean something like "I'M IN CLASS BUT NOT PAYING ATTENTION!".  This is not vandalism.  There's even a discussion on the article talk page that you didn't bother to comment and they pointed it out in the edit summary.  Another example.  A good option is to better describe why you don't like the edit and use the talk page more.  <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 16:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Ravensfire, I do not know what to write and I do not want spend time, so I write Vandalism.--  AHLM13  talk 16:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop doing that. Unfounded accusations of vandalism constitute personal attacks and will not be tolerated. Take the time to do it correctly or do not do it at all. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Jpgordon, Ok i will not do again.--  AHLM13  talk 16:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

has unblocked you

 * I'm assuming good faith and unblocking this user. I can give a detailed rationale and discuss my checkuser findings if anyone wishes, but my conclusions are that it is entirely possible that the only mistake AHLM13 is making is trusting his WP:BROTHER. Someone messed with his account for an hour or so. If I'm wrong, this account will start misbehaving again, and someone will turn it right back off. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adopting a different approach Jpgordon, obviously an editor can be reblocked for misbehavior.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much user:Jpgordon. You are a very good admin! I also to thank to other users who helped me in this situation. Thanks everybody. --  AHLM13  talk 16:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!
Thanks, but next give me something else. Not always baklavas. --  AHLM13  talk 17:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

-- C E  (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

User:CosmicEmperor, continue to talk to me through email. Check your email everytime. --  AHLM13  talk 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Regular vandalism
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - NQ (talk)  20:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to get blocked? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Wow. Just, wow.  I can't even begin to figure out what's happening.  That's about the best possible reason I can think of for this outburst. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pretty crazy. Either someone (a very skilled hacker) has hacked his personal computer and is able to access his account. Or either the user has issues and needs to sort them out. Whatever the reality is, these outbursts really seem to defy any logic or wild imagination.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , even if we accept that someone has hacked his personal computer, then what AHLM13 is doing? Sitting idly and watching the drama? Well, that may be possible in the situation that AHLM13 is away from home for some job and in the meantime someone is misusing this account. But who knows? Even in that case, how does this someone know how to use/edit Wikipedia? But one thing I've noticed: the tone, fluency, and accuracy of English previously used by AHLM13 are not same with the present ones.
 * Regarding today's incident, the first ip was from Kolkata, but the second ip 43.249.38.98 is from Singapore. How come that a second ip from Singapore did the same thing done by a Kolkata ip 49 minuets ago? The whole thing has become very strange. - Ascetic Rosé   16:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, since sock accounts have been attacking Anna Frodesiak on her talk page and made other threats, I think we are beyond trying to come up with explanations for AHML13's actions. That ship has sailed. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 16:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> There is a covert/sneaky way this is being done. AHLM13 knows somebody with better English skills. He allows him/her to edit and vandalize Wikipedia. Then comes back and say "I didn't do it, it was someone else i swear, my account was hacked". He knows his supporters  will say, "hey look, the English is different, I am sure that's not AHLM13, he  got BROTHERed." When all are getting confused what happened, He is simply enjoying the confusion. C E (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with Liz that it is useless to speculate what happened to this account. So I'm canceling my previous statement. I made the statement on good faith while I see that it was interpreted by CosmicEmperor in quite a wrong way using the word supporters. My accusing finger was rather at AHLM. I see yesterday the IP 112.79.38.155 said The user is a nightmare to WP, but still got lots of supporters, and now User:CosmicEmperor is saying the same thing. Your behavior is no less suspicious that AHLM13. You sent him mail and AHLM13 replied User:CosmicEmperor, continue to talk to me through email. However, I'll not spend any more time or word on this muddy issue. Let the account remain blocked. - Ascetic Rosé   03:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. I should have just said WP:COMPROMISED and walked away; it would have saved some annoyance. --jpgordon:==( o ) 04:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
I have revoked your talk page access. If you wish to appeal this block, first read Appealing a block, then visit the unblock requests system (UTRS). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Requesting unblock in future
Use Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee, when you will be request unblock in future. I would advise you to try that after 6 months and without socking. Thank you.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 11:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Advice
AHLM13, you've been given advice from various editors above but you're basically ignoring it by creating the IP socks and leaving posts on ANI and a fair number of editor talk pages. That's just disruptive and creates bad will towards you. I realize you cannot post on this talk page so you can't respond here but honestly, that doesn't matter. The only conversations that matter are between you and the admin volunteers on the WP:UTRS system that you can use e-mail to communicate with. Here's the last bit of advice on what I think you need to do.


 * Stop creating socks and using IP accounts until this is resolved. You are blocked.  Not just the AHLM13 account, but the person behind that account.  It doesn't matter why - you are blocked.  That's why the IP's keep getting blocked and your posts removed, you are evading the block.
 * Someone is trolling you and editors you've interacted with by posting as an IP or a new account and claiming to be you. There are people that delight in finding editors in trouble and using their name to stir up trouble.  ANI is a great place to find editors that are in trouble and thus good targets for this kind of abuse.  Until they get bored, it's nearly impossible to stop them.  The normal process is called WP:RBI - Revert, Block, Ignore. Trolls do this for fun and the more you react, the more fun they have.  Ignore them.  It will continue for a while.  Accept that.  Ignore the posts completely.  Others can handle it - it happens all the time on Wikipedia.
 * Read WP:COMPROMISED. Read it again.  You have said those edits that triggered the block were not from you which triggers that section.  The most concerning thing is that after the unblock for the May 3rd edits it happened again on the 11th.  An outside observer can only conclude that you did not secure your account after the first incident which leads to concerns about if you can secure your account in the future.
 * The first sentence of WP:COMPROMISED explicitly says that your account will not be unblocked. You need to accept that.
 * If you're still interacting with admins through UTRS, ask them about WP:COMPROMISED and what YOU need to do before creating a new account and linking it to your AHLM13. Do whatever they say.  Don't make excuses, don't point fingers.  Just do what they ask.
 * Ultimately, the security of your account and your computer is your responsibility. Yes, hackers are out there, lots of them.  Some what money, some what attention and some just want to cause trouble and enjoy the chaos they can create.  The best defense is you taking responsibility for the security of the accounts and computers you control and acting appropriately.  COMPROMISED links to a good article on personal security practices - read it!

Good luck on working with UTRS. Remember that they are volunteers and harder you make it for them to work with you, the less likely they'll be willing to help. You are the one who's account was compromised and that does cause legitimate security concerns. Understand that and use the information from that personal security practices document to show how you are improving the security of your account and your computer. If you can't convince an admin that your account and computer is secure, there's no way back. That's just security precautions. Work with them, talk with them, humbly ask what you need to do and get it done. Good luck. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)