User talk:Code16

Thank you for your call. A customer service advisor will be with you momentarily.

	The Resilient Barnstar
	"The Resilient Barnstar is awarded to any editor who learns and improves from criticisms, never letting mistakes impede their growth as an editor." For your understanding after recent criticism. Keep going! Faizan (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Code16. You have new messages at Faizan's talk page.
Message added 16:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Faizan (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to Talk:Non-denominational Muslim where a discussion about the speedy delelition of the article has been started. Your point of view will be much appreciated! Septate (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hadith and Criticism of Hadith (Authenticity Category)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 28 November 2015.

Hello.I am afraid that I will not be able to help with your request as I am no expert in Islamic theology and therefore have no way to confirm the reliability of the sources.--Catlemur (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for responding in any case. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 18:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely unfamiliar with the hadith; I know what they are, but that's it. As such, I don't think my input would be helpful. I skimmed the discussion and saw nothing obviously untoward (it appears to be just the content dispute that you described, not something with someone misusing sources or doing other fundamentally problematic stuff), and the only obvious problem with the articles (aside from minor stuff, like punctuation and slightly odd wording) is that big chunks of Criticism of Hadith are present in Hadith, which is normally not a good idea because when we've chopped out a chunk of an article for it to stand separately, the remaining part in the main article should be a summary, not merely reproducing a part of the new article and largely ignoring the rest. Nyttend (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input, yes I agree that the content the summarization should be done better in these cases where the articles split off into branches. I've tried to follow another user's advise on this when doing it most recently for the authenticity section. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 22:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, got your message - there is one (enormous) problem: I know next to nothing about the subject. If it was solely a grammar or copy edit problem, then I could possibly help. Sorry I can't be of more assistance to you, I hope you can reach an agreeable solution. Best regards Denisarona (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Hadith and Criticism of Hadith (Authenticity Category), in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hadith and Criticism of Hadith (Authenticity Category), so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

Sorry to bother, I think the Islam article has a lot of poor editing put in by anyone with an axe to grind and needs a lot of cleaning up. I am trying to do that but am in a little trouble by editors who get scared by the red negative sign of the history page showing net negative reduction in the article. If you do not mind, could we get your input on the talk page since you seem to be involved with the article before? Sodicadl (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sodicadl, sorry I was on vacation. Will try and take a look and contribute. cӨde1+6^TP 00:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Code16 reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: ). Thank you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned for edit warring at Criticism of Hadith per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Code16 reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: Both warned). You are risking a block if you revert again at that article before Feb. 1st, per the terms explained in the report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: sir, consensus has been achieved at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Hadith#Hallaq.27s_condensing . cӨde1+6^TP 01:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone on the talk page said that they support your change? Absence of comments by others doesn't prove much. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: Hmm, ok no worries, I'll keep waiting.... But if there's no one arguing the other side then... what do I do? cӨde1+6^TP 03:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A number of people have previously commented on Talk. You could ping them: User:HyperGaruda, User:FreeatlastChitchat and User:Thincat. You could ask them to take a look at Talk:Criticism of Hadith#Hallaq's condensing. There has been some talk about fringe issues. Though I haven't checked your new argument I hope you are prepared to answer that concern. I actually can't tell if you are proposing some new text for the article. It might help to clarify what words you want to add. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will do sir, but if you read my last comment on 19th Jan, (and the sourced paper) it's obvious that the other user simply misunderstood what the paper was about. But I'll ping everyone just in case. cӨde1+6^TP 12:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. The "fringe" issue was actually the misunderstanding on the other user's part, and also I'm not proposing new content, but re-adding content that was unduly subtracted, because the user thought it was fringe, when it wasn't. I've explained the details in my last comment. cӨde1+6^TP 13:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Muhammad selling slaves". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 February 2016.

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Muhammad selling slaves, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Muhammad selling slaves, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

The request for formal mediation concerning Muhammad selling slaves, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

I would appreciate your comment here.--Victor Chmara (talk) 08:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Code16, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Kalabagh Dam has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate at the deletion nominations for India and state-sponsored terrorism and 2016 Indian military raid in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Thanks. Filpro (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've voted on both. cӨde1+6^TP 23:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Code16. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request, Ive completed the assessment of the article Ideas of Ghulam Ahmed Pervez, and rated it. -AsceticRosé 01:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Code16. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Code16. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Code16. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Code16. Following your email request, I have created the subpage User:Code16/Mridu Rai with the content of the deleted article. Note that this article had been deleted on January 24, 2018 by User:Anthony Bradbury for the following reason: G5: Created by a banned or blocked user (Mfarazbaig) in violation of ban or block. This material can serve as the basis of a new article that you can create if you think it is appropriate. Olivier (talk) 07:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.  — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user conspired with others in a scheme to frame editors for sockpuppetry. The nationalistic edit warring has gotten out of hand and the banhammer is going to start falling more readily on POV warriors and schemers.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 08:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Code16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The actual sequence of events goes something like this. Sometime in the last third of November I marshal evidence and sent it to the only checkuser who responded to my request, KrakatoaKatie, about a account (lets call it A) which I believe was a sock of someone (lets call them B ). Katie could not find anything through checkuser, still, we parted on friendly terms and she acknowledged that my report was in good faith.

Much later I noticed another account (lets call it C) whose first edit was at least a week older than my report to Katie. I believed that this too might be a sock of B. Had I noticed it before I would have included it in my earlier report to Katie. This time I decided just to report it to Berean Hunter.

Initially Berean Hunter praised my report as a good case. Weeks later Berean did a somersault and started believing for reasons unknown that I was some sort of culprit. According to Berean someone was being "impersonated." If so it is not my fault that the person I reported in good faith turned out to be an impostor. Their behavior looked too suspicious to me. But, if BH's insinuation that I was somehow behind C was true, then I would have reported C in my earlier report to Katie.

The accusation of nationalistic edit warring is also completely unfounded. Unless by some new definition edit warring also includes self-reverts. Self-reverting are the only reverts I have ever done. That is no edit war. As far as nationalistic editing goes, I have historically opposed sanctions on BOTH sides of the India-Pakistan community here. Code16 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's impossible to deal with hypotheticals and private evidence. Please appeal to Arbcom. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.