User talk:Nadya Hasan

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Earnest James Ujaama, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ''The edit you made also introduced non-neutral content into the article, and did not abide by the Manual of Style. It was also clearly not a minor edit and so should not have been marked as such. Please slow down and make smaller edits to the article one at a time, or discuss larger changes on the talk page first''. Melcous (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Please do not revert to the changes you made. Accoridng to Wikipedia policy on BLPs, "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively...the possibility of harm to the subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgement." Also, according to Wikipedia policy on BLPs, "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems--even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on topic." In all honesty, I am not sure this person deserves a Wikipedia page, since the subject is notable only for one event." In fact, WIkipedia recommends to "generally avoid having an article on a person when" (a) known only for a single event, (b) is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, and (c) the subject had a role that was both not substantial, although the latter can be debated. According to court documents and deep articles, other witnesses were far more substantial in the conviction of Abu Hamza than this subject regardless of what has been said. Please remember that you are writing about a living person. Nadya Hasan (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There were lots of reliable sources, unless you mean the article written by you in the Intercept. Nadya Hasan (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Earnest James Ujaama. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. SparklyNights 21:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * This is a person's life and reputation; to dehumanize him. The edits that Melcous have made are deliberately designed to promote his article with the Intercept and to focus purely on one incident that most media did not get right. There was much more to the man's story than just his early life events. What I have been attempting to do is humanize him while being fair, balanced, and following the Wikipedia guidelines on BLP. The man is also black American which makes him a vulnerable minority. If the page is used to merely promote a journalist, while dehumanizing a man, then it should be removed. It is not my intention to be involved in an edit but to prevent Wikipedia from being used to harm a living person. Nadya Hasan (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Nadya Hasan! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Earnest James Ujaama several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. The approach at Wikipedia is called WP:BRD - you Boldly make a change, but when it's been Reverted, you need to Discuss on the article talk page and work towards consensus. Multiple other editors have reverted you, so WP:BLP really isn't in question here. It's clear you think the article is biased, but likewise it's clear that other experienced editors in good faith disagree with that view. It's time to use the article talk page..  Ravensfire  (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * There is a bigger picture is the harm that Wikipedia is causing by publishing online for millions to gather an image of what kind of character and risk this character presents. These are often called "collateral consequences" and we have stronger protections in most states for persons with former criminal justice contact. We must adhere to the BLPs policy. It is very possible that others, especially if they are not a member of the Black American community, can see no harm. However, it is not like Wikipedia or the tech industry has very many Black Americans who are a protected minority class, editing these pages. Nadya Hasan (talk) 04:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I mistakenly reverted you're last edit on that article. I've reverted my edit there.  Read the edit summary though.  You have made zero attempt at a collaborative editing process.  None.  Wikipedia does not work that way, and you will end up blocked from editing, partially or fully, if you continue.  Your actions don't show any interest in collaboration, discussion or a true NPOV article, just your version over, and over and over.  Think on this.  I'm out of this one, kindly respect that.  Ravensfire  (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * C'mon, I don't want to get into a shouting match, name calling, or accusations about the other. But I am wondering if you are truly a neutral party. The previous versions is littered with references to one story by Trevor Aaronson, and it has other references to the Investigative Project which is an anti-Muslim project which Aaronson has worked with. There is blatant Islamophobic and racial bias in the article. For example, "radical islam", a term used by those who pushed for war and attempted to ban Muslims from entering the US. Also, a common term used in the war on terror. Nadya Hasan (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No idea why I'm bothering to respond .. but descriptions in Wikipedia articles should be based on what reliable sources use. So when sources say "radical islamist" (especially when it's a common label) that "may" be used in the article.  OFten that needs to be attributed though - same issues with other terms (see WP:TERRORIST).  These are all points you SHOULD be raising on the article talk page and yet you haven't done that yet.  That's always the first place to start, and the one place you haven't used yet.  Use the WP:BLP policies, sources (and issues with sources) to demonstrate issues and suggest changes.  Good luck, I'm done here.  Ravensfire  (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SparklyNights 04:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This piece needs to be removed immediately until it no longer has racial and religious bias attributation. This is not an edit war, but the prevention of an attack on a living person. I have called for a higher up to help resolve this issue until we can do this, I will continue reverting back to the version that is fair, balanced, and without fallacious and racial or religious indifference. According to the Wikipedia policy on BLPs, "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. .. Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or forms that lack precision." This has become an attack piece designed to paint a picture of the subject in a purposively negative light due to his activism. Nadya Hasan (talk) 05:12, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is an intentional and deliberate effort to dehumanize and characterize Earnest James Ujaama, the subject, in way that fits the narrative proposed in an article by Trevor Aaronson at the Intercept. The article is mentioned abundantly and appears as promotional. Instead of attempting to correct a more balanced article about the subject, you have opted to remove the entire post which consisted of reliable references. This tells me that the person making the edits has to be the same person. Otherwise, why insist on changing a more balanced edit in favor of one that is filled with loaded terms and judgemental expressions such as the article that relied on partial court documents as references? Either way, I propose the best solution is to have it either removed or rewritten with major edits to reflect the strict BLPs guidelines. Nadya Hasan (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Final warning
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Melcous (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2023 (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. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)