Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal.
Supreme Deliciousness, please add references to her Syrian songs or why she would be considered a Syrian singer so that Music of Syria would be considered a fact in the template. -- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Arab Cowboy it would be nice if u create a User page so that when signing you wouldn't have a redlink.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 13:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I didn't know why I had a red link. Btw, thanks for your help! -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 13:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Could u work on Asmahan#Asmahan_and_her_debut before the marriage section, filling all citation needed tags and expanding?-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 21:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Please if u have references to this section provide them and add them in your time.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 08:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You have the green light to edit the article except the things discussed before like the lead. Please don't remove anything from what the other user has added. You may only add new info and expand stuff. You can also fix grammar and copyedit the Early life section according to your sources. I'll monitor the page and add {{ Clarify}} and {{ fact}} when I see stuff missing. Please reference all the unreferenced stuff. Otherwise there is no proof that she even was a singer. We will discuss tomorrow at 13:30 GMT any disputes.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 13:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you still there Arab Cowboy?-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 17:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am. Will work on the article until tomorrow at 13:30 GMT. Thanks, -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Surpreme Deliciousness posted a warning on the Golan Heights talk page warning people about me and you saying we are the same. He also put the warning on my page but I deleted it. I thought you should know he was bad mouthing you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolof359 ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Arab Cowboy, you have expanded the Asmahan article to a great extent with valuable info. It would be even better if u write a little about the TV show. I found many sources, in arabic though:-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 15:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing of which I am accused, as I read it now, has to do with Wikipedia articles, not an incidents' reporting page. I still do not see where I could have been disruptive, and none of my edits can be construed as Wikipedia:Vandalism as my accusation was later changed to by Tan. I still see this as a clear abuse of administrator authority by Tan. -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 06:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you post the diff where I changed anything? Tan | 39 06:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is my account still blocked even though the 72 hours have passed?
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Autoblock #1515236 lifted or expired.
Request handled by: Q T C 06:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw what happened after I have posted a complaint here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_false_Accusations_and_Insults_by_User_Supreme_Deliciousness_.28SD.29 To me, this is becoming funny! I am tired of being called your sockpuppet everytime. Anyway, I have decided to take llywrch's advice: "It is not a personal attack to call another user a "sockpuppet" ". I'll be cool everytime I am called so :) I am not sure if you have the same stance, thats' why I would like to ask you if I can provide any help. -- Nefer Tweety ( talk) 10:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I misread the history logs of your discussion page; you had only once removed the notice that your appeal to be unblocked was declined. While that is never something to remove from your Talk page, the fact you restored it soon afterwards shows you understood it should not be removed. Hence I apologize for any inconvenience this caused. However, I still caution you to moderate your behavior: your response to the allegation that you were a "sockpuppet" was inappropriate. Discuss the facts, not the political theory of free speech. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 09:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Could you avoid changing your comments too much on the talk page there? Edits like this make it harder to keep up with the latest conversation, as it requires re-reading all the previous comments every time. And if someone quotes you, that quotation may be stale. In general it's best for you to just leave a new note at the bottom. WP:TPG#Own comments talks about doing this. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I am finding some difficulty uploading few pictures. A lot of things here seem confusing to me. I am a new user and I am still not acquainted with few things here. Can you kindly help me out? Thanks in advance -- Nefer Tweety ( talk) 17:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Diaa:
I brought this conversation here because it's hard to conduct a sane one with all the rude interjections from two specific editors.
I regeret that our conversation yesterday took an abrupt turn. However, your accusation, " I find what AC did with changing everything without even respecting my input shows much disrespect to my instructions," was unexpected and I took it seriously. I posted a clear defense of my position in response, and all you did was invoke that WP:STICK response. I reiterate here the sequence of events. AFTER the two 24-hour free-edit periods had elapsed, you allowed, or SD snuck by you, at lease 4 edits, when I had understood it to be only you editing the article during that time, and I refrained from touching it. I posted all my comments to your and SD's edits on the article's Talk page and then, when you ignored them, on your own Talk page, which you also ignored, only to find you giving an instruction to SD to "improve the article". I thought that maybe I had missed a "free edit" instruction since you were approving his editing of the article and instructing further edits. So, if there was any fault in what happened, it was SD's sneak edits, your missing them, your ignoring my comments, and finally, your unqualified "improve the article" instruction.
I therefore do not accept blame for the break-down in communication, and I ask that you retract, if not apologize for, your accusation on the Talk page. If the WP:STICK response is all that you are willing to offer, then I will have to accept the stoppage of your mediation. In all cases, I thank you for your efforts so far.
-- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 08:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Marhaba AC, please see the article now and tell me what other concerns you may have. I tried to address most of them, albeit not exactly the way you wanted, but within the confines of Wiki guidelines and personal compromise. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism
check this: "If the external work is under standard copyright, then duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation" -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That you couldnt have told me yourself that I was not writing or talking on your "talk" page...lol haram. Lebanese bebe ( talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You said: tribal thought process that you may be used to in the Middle East. Yes, this is a leap
Me...Tribal thought process in the Middle East. Sweet heart I do not have a tribal thought process and you really need to stop being so primitive and offensive. Well now I can clearly make a charge of harassment, teling me that I have a tribal thought process that I am used to in the Middle East LMAO. I live in the States sweetheart. My tribal way? Do I need to involve the administrators?? Because now it is obvious ur harassing me. Lebanese bebe ( talk) 07:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Marhaba AC, I don't think I'll be able to articulate responses to the concerns brought up by you and SD on the Asmahan talk page just yet (it's getting murkier and murkier...). I'm leaving Wiki for a three-day vacation (to Miami!) and will respond when I get back. If I have access to a computer I'll get on wiki briefly. Anyway, I suggest that both of you edit other articles until then when we could work something out—inshallah. I'm giving SD the same message. Cheers, -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 02:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arab Cowboy. Please have a look at my talk page. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. I am too busy with other matters anyway. The whole article matched the sources to the same extent. You can be selective all you want! Your blanking of only section of the article was double standards. -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 14:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
May this Ramadan and the next be full of blessings, -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ameer. You seem to be a very nice guy. -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 09:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Btw, Ameer, please take a look at the Asmahan Talk page. I thought we had agreed that I was going to be given until the weekend to work on possible CVs in the Role in WWII section. You personally agreed to that, "Thanks, Ameer. Yes, you've done more good than bad. I will rewrite my sections in the weekend to word more differently than the source. I am busy till the weekend, so no pressing me on this till then. Salam, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks and no problem AC. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)." Unfortunately, before the weekend, SD went around making his trademark nagging complaints to another admin, CactusWriter, and that admin protected that specific section from further editing for CV. When I objected and stated that the whole article was written in a similar fashion, and I labelled the whole article (except for the lead) as such... very close to the sources, Cactus would not check the remainder of the artcile and finally blocked me. Cactus has then proceeded to delete the whole article, which was the same action that I had taken and which he described as desruptive and for which he blocked me, and restore the 11 July version of the article. Cactus has stated on the Talk page of the article that plagiarism started with your (Ameer's) own edit on 11 July. I do not have time to deal with WP in this ridiculous fashion... We have a very childish editor, SD, who would not stop at any lows to get his agenda through, and admins who do not wish to spend the time to review those childish complaints before they take action. Cactus blocked for taking an action (tagging the article as CV, as per his own criteria) that he personally later took. I also suspect that Cactus does not understand the definition of plagiarism. According to WP, 'Whether it is the result of deliberate deception, or improper attribution, duplicating the work of others without credit can bring both author and publisher into disrepute.' According to MW, "transitive verb: 1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own; 2) use (another's production) without crediting the source.' Clearly, the key is to credit the information, etc., to its respective sources, whether quoted or paraphrased. I do notunderstand his objections and his reasoning for wasting all of our collective efforts for more than a month. All the sentences in the Role in WWII section that Cactus judged as plagiarized were attributed to their reespective sources, not only the full sentences, but even as little as words copied from the sources. So, no credit was stolen from the sources and I do not see where plagirism could have been alleged. I am sending you this message as a shot in the dark, but I do not have too much hope that admins will diligently do the work that they volunteered to do. Take care. -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 10:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Arab Cowboy, from your messages above, it appears you have misunderstood the reason you were blocked. You received a block for persistent edit warring. The Asmahan article was only one place where this occurred. When I received a complaint about your editing behavior, a check of your contributions that day revealed a quick series of contentious blanket reversions, including antagonizing "vandalism" labels directed at an editor [1], [2], [3], and even a mislabeled copyright violation [4]. There was also the reversion, reversion, reversion, reversion at Asmahan. All these reversions occurred within a few hours. A check of your block log revealed you were blocked twice only last month [5], [6] for edit warring and disruptive editing. My block to prevent your continued disruption was justified per edit warring policy. You had been advised about this behavior previously. It was not new to you and you understood it. I suggest you try to understand that continuing in the same manner is unacceptable and disruptive.
I do understand that you have been in a continual "battle" with user SD. I know the problem has not been one-sided and I feel both of you both have been equally culpable. When I first arrived at Talk:Asmahan in response to a Copyright Violation Report, it took me only a minute to realize there was an extreme antagonism between the two of you. The next day, when SD asked me if was okay to delete information from Al-Atrash, I felt it necessary to warn SD about edit warring and improper POV-pushing. I also said then that I thought both of you were on the verge of topic bans. I still believe that. My suggestion is to avoid one another and do not alter each other's edits, but rather have a neutral third editor make changes for you.
As far as the copyright violations and the determination of plagiarism, that is an entirely different matter, but I will be happy to explain that to you. If you have questions, feel free to ask. — CactusWriter | needles 10:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ive filed request for Arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Asmahan -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, hmwith ☮ 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
File:Aleya Al Menzer and her Children.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Aleya Al Menzer and her Children.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Aleya Al Menzer and her Children.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 06:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop#Case workflow management. Let me know if you need assistance, hmwith ☮ 17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I have posted the first round of questions on the Workshop. John Vandenberg ( chat) 17:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Your evidence is over the length limit, which is 1000 words. Please shorten it or it will be cut off at 1000 words. Thanks, hmwith ☮ 18:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Marhaba Arab Cowboy. Thanks for pointing out those edits at the Pope Shenouda article. I found a lot of it to be biased and added some tags and a section at the talk page explaining why the article needs neutrality work. However, I haven't been active lately and won't be so active in the near future, at least for a few more months, so I don't really want to enter the Omar Sharif controversy, but I might take a quick look at it. Cheers! -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 22:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
Uninvolved administrators may perform escalating blocks on editors who do not abide by these remedies.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you still there? SD is acting up again on Asmahan! -- Nefer Tweety ( talk) 09:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
For abuse of alternate accounts, you are banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case until June 15, 2010. If you violate this ban through either your main account or through sockpuppets, you will be blocked. NW ( Talk) 18:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=335663771#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Asmahan -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No it's not wrong if I correctly source it. some of the most liberal intellects in the Middle east from Algeria to relate by Pan-Arabism with facism and Nazism.This is the problem with pan-arabists you want to force your opinion with even those who disagree with it read the book The origins of totalitarianism then tell me I am the only one who thinks or argues that. Pan-Arabism is a racist and failed ideology. Which has the victims of many innocent people. Arabism is racism!, it is one of the most racist ideology ever to exist, it has been embedded with bigotry of its ultra nationalism against all non-Arabs or forcing the Label onto to non arabs and comitting cultural genocide (as well real life genocide like the farhud in Iraq and massacre in Darfur) since its inception, past and currect main victims of its racism include: Kurds (mainly in Iraq & in Syria), Berbers (in north Africa), Jews (Jewish victims of Arabism were even before Israel's re-establishment and today include not just in the middle east), black Africans (mosly in the Sudan, Mauritania, Egypt, but not exclusively) and Christians (Egypt and Lebanon) who have fell victim to this ideology. ♥Yasmina♥ ( talk) 14:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there any place online I can find this interview with Sharif where he denies that his family is of Lebanese origin? I really dont care if he is Egyptian or Lebanese or Russian, but we have to go with the sources. nableezy - 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arab_Cowboy -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
NW (
Talk)
22:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Marhaba AC, long time no see (virtually that is)
-- Al Ameer son ( talk) 04:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not email me again. If you want to request an unblock, do so on this talk page. It might help if your entire message doesn't consist of insulting the blocking administrator. NW ( Talk) 14:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Arab Cowboy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please see responses to blocking admin above. By NW's admission, the sanction covered article Talk pages only and NOT noticeboards. I did not see the extension from Talk pages to noticeboards and do not agree with it. If he had wanted noticeboards to be covered by his sanction, then he should have stated so in no uncertain terms. He should also have alerted me to the possible violation, issued a warning if found no cooperation, solicited input from other arbitrators since he was the sanction imposing admin and has a history with me during appeal, and then allowed others to decide this case. This admin is self -serving.
Decline reason:
There is a categorical difference between a page ban and a topic ban. The former deals with restrictions upon particular sets of pages; the latter deals with a broad topic. If you were topic banned on anything related to the discussion of "gay individuals," then that topic ban can carry over not only onto articles, but into noticeboards and associated discussion pages. Declining unblock due to topic ban violation. seicer | talk | contribs 06:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Arab Cowboy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I ask that Cactus Writer judge this case. Cactus was behind the dismissal of the case linked above because of a "literal" reading of the topic ban, and he has been consistently "literal" in the reading of all policies and bans. Why is this suggested "liberal" interpretation applied to me now? Someone please ask Cactus to rule here. -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 07:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are not entitled to have specific admins review your requests. This request does not address the reason for your block and is therefore declined. Sandstein 07:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Arab Cowboy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The previous unblock requests DID address the reasons of the block. However, Sandstein requires an EXPLICIT challenge of the reasons of the block each and every time. I reiterate, the sanction placed by NW on 31 December 2009 DID NOT EXPLICITLY apply to Noticeboards (not even once) and I never understood it to do so. If he had intended it to apply to noticeboards, he should EXPLICITLY stated it in the ban. "I do not read minds", as Sandstein said on his Talk page. I DEMAND a literal reading of the ban and not a "liberal" one and I point you to this precedent where a literal reading of the TOPIC ban was upheld and editing of Talk pages was not found actionable. Why are you discriminating in the reading of the topic bans, once literally, and now liberally as you please? Why are you biased in favor of certain editors and POVs? Your bias and discrimination is too apparent and it is making Wikipedia a sorry place to be! Go ahead and block my talk page too, for this insanity is what I have come to expect from you.
Why did NW not issue an alert or warning on the noticeboard to possible violations of a "liberal interpretation" that was only in his mind? I upheld NW's topic ban on article Talk pages as per the wording thereof, and I was NOT subject to any restrictions on Noticeboards. Is the reason for the block sufficiently addressed now?
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
-- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 10:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Arab Cowboy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Sir, I have reviewed all aspects of this block and am declining the unblock request. The point is almost moot as the block will expire in a few hours. Nevertheless you should know that the block is appropriate for the following reasons. First, your block did include "associated talk pages" of articles within the scope of the case. It is only wikilawyering to assert a Noticeboard was not included. Second, it was your editing on a topic that got you into trouble, therefore the remedy was to prevent your editing in a broad way within that area. Third, it is not reasonable to conclude that you can move from one venue to another to evade a ban. The topic you were discussing at the noticeboard was the same as that which got you into trouble. I would suggest that you remove yourself from the stress for a few more hours and return with an intent to edit collectively and with your colleagues here instead of against them. Let this issue pass. JodyB talk 11:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
AC, User:Luna Santin just notified me of this block and asked me to comment. I see that JodyB has already explained some of the situation. Essentially, the limits of the bans for you and SD are not the same -- so pointing to the other AE decisions doesn't follow. Yes, initially, you both received the same topic bans -- which still permitted use of article talk pages. However, after the Medjool incident, Nuclear Warfare expanded your topic ban to include all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case. Generally, it is understood that that means all pages in Wikipedia which discuss those articles. I'm sorry if you were not clear about the scope of that ban. Arbitrators and administrators will often add the term "broadly construed" when banning editors from talk pages so it is clear that notice boards and project discussion pages are included -- although that wording is usually unnecessary for more experienced editors like yourself. (I will include that language on the case page so that there is no further doubt). Of course, the ban does not include your own talk page -- for example, I see that the discussion above with Nableezy about Omar Sharif is perfectly acceptable and productive.
The bottomline is this: During the time period of your topic ban, you must avoid edits or discussion about any article within the scope of the Asmahan case. I'm certain you have other articles on which you are collaborating and will occupy your time during the following months. In the meantime, there are only a few hours left on the current block, so I hope you will take the time to relax away from Wikipedia. — CactusWriter | needles 19:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 04:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Tim Song (
talk)
02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 03:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Fraid al-Atrash and Samia Gamal.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 18:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Asmahan in her last film.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Al-Gamea in Al-Gamea Square (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Baron Palace (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Baron Palace Gardens (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Old Inhabitants 2 (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Palace Hotel 4 (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Palace Hotel 5 (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soad Hosny and Abdel-Halim Hafiz.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soad Hosny's Birth Certificate.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Asmahan in her last film.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. czar 17:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal.
Supreme Deliciousness, please add references to her Syrian songs or why she would be considered a Syrian singer so that Music of Syria would be considered a fact in the template. -- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
User:Arab Cowboy it would be nice if u create a User page so that when signing you wouldn't have a redlink.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 13:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I didn't know why I had a red link. Btw, thanks for your help! -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 13:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Could u work on Asmahan#Asmahan_and_her_debut before the marriage section, filling all citation needed tags and expanding?-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 21:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Please if u have references to this section provide them and add them in your time.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 08:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
You have the green light to edit the article except the things discussed before like the lead. Please don't remove anything from what the other user has added. You may only add new info and expand stuff. You can also fix grammar and copyedit the Early life section according to your sources. I'll monitor the page and add {{ Clarify}} and {{ fact}} when I see stuff missing. Please reference all the unreferenced stuff. Otherwise there is no proof that she even was a singer. We will discuss tomorrow at 13:30 GMT any disputes.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 13:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you still there Arab Cowboy?-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 17:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I am. Will work on the article until tomorrow at 13:30 GMT. Thanks, -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello. Surpreme Deliciousness posted a warning on the Golan Heights talk page warning people about me and you saying we are the same. He also put the warning on my page but I deleted it. I thought you should know he was bad mouthing you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolof359 ( talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Arab Cowboy, you have expanded the Asmahan article to a great extent with valuable info. It would be even better if u write a little about the TV show. I found many sources, in arabic though:-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 15:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing of which I am accused, as I read it now, has to do with Wikipedia articles, not an incidents' reporting page. I still do not see where I could have been disruptive, and none of my edits can be construed as Wikipedia:Vandalism as my accusation was later changed to by Tan. I still see this as a clear abuse of administrator authority by Tan. -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 06:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you post the diff where I changed anything? Tan | 39 06:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is my account still blocked even though the 72 hours have passed?
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Autoblock #1515236 lifted or expired.
Request handled by: Q T C 06:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I saw what happened after I have posted a complaint here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_false_Accusations_and_Insults_by_User_Supreme_Deliciousness_.28SD.29 To me, this is becoming funny! I am tired of being called your sockpuppet everytime. Anyway, I have decided to take llywrch's advice: "It is not a personal attack to call another user a "sockpuppet" ". I'll be cool everytime I am called so :) I am not sure if you have the same stance, thats' why I would like to ask you if I can provide any help. -- Nefer Tweety ( talk) 10:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I misread the history logs of your discussion page; you had only once removed the notice that your appeal to be unblocked was declined. While that is never something to remove from your Talk page, the fact you restored it soon afterwards shows you understood it should not be removed. Hence I apologize for any inconvenience this caused. However, I still caution you to moderate your behavior: your response to the allegation that you were a "sockpuppet" was inappropriate. Discuss the facts, not the political theory of free speech. -- llywrch ( talk) 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
-- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 09:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Could you avoid changing your comments too much on the talk page there? Edits like this make it harder to keep up with the latest conversation, as it requires re-reading all the previous comments every time. And if someone quotes you, that quotation may be stale. In general it's best for you to just leave a new note at the bottom. WP:TPG#Own comments talks about doing this. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I am finding some difficulty uploading few pictures. A lot of things here seem confusing to me. I am a new user and I am still not acquainted with few things here. Can you kindly help me out? Thanks in advance -- Nefer Tweety ( talk) 17:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Diaa:
I brought this conversation here because it's hard to conduct a sane one with all the rude interjections from two specific editors.
I regeret that our conversation yesterday took an abrupt turn. However, your accusation, " I find what AC did with changing everything without even respecting my input shows much disrespect to my instructions," was unexpected and I took it seriously. I posted a clear defense of my position in response, and all you did was invoke that WP:STICK response. I reiterate here the sequence of events. AFTER the two 24-hour free-edit periods had elapsed, you allowed, or SD snuck by you, at lease 4 edits, when I had understood it to be only you editing the article during that time, and I refrained from touching it. I posted all my comments to your and SD's edits on the article's Talk page and then, when you ignored them, on your own Talk page, which you also ignored, only to find you giving an instruction to SD to "improve the article". I thought that maybe I had missed a "free edit" instruction since you were approving his editing of the article and instructing further edits. So, if there was any fault in what happened, it was SD's sneak edits, your missing them, your ignoring my comments, and finally, your unqualified "improve the article" instruction.
I therefore do not accept blame for the break-down in communication, and I ask that you retract, if not apologize for, your accusation on the Talk page. If the WP:STICK response is all that you are willing to offer, then I will have to accept the stoppage of your mediation. In all cases, I thank you for your efforts so far.
-- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 08:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Marhaba AC, please see the article now and tell me what other concerns you may have. I tried to address most of them, albeit not exactly the way you wanted, but within the confines of Wiki guidelines and personal compromise. -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism
check this: "If the external work is under standard copyright, then duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation" -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
That you couldnt have told me yourself that I was not writing or talking on your "talk" page...lol haram. Lebanese bebe ( talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You said: tribal thought process that you may be used to in the Middle East. Yes, this is a leap
Me...Tribal thought process in the Middle East. Sweet heart I do not have a tribal thought process and you really need to stop being so primitive and offensive. Well now I can clearly make a charge of harassment, teling me that I have a tribal thought process that I am used to in the Middle East LMAO. I live in the States sweetheart. My tribal way? Do I need to involve the administrators?? Because now it is obvious ur harassing me. Lebanese bebe ( talk) 07:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Marhaba AC, I don't think I'll be able to articulate responses to the concerns brought up by you and SD on the Asmahan talk page just yet (it's getting murkier and murkier...). I'm leaving Wiki for a three-day vacation (to Miami!) and will respond when I get back. If I have access to a computer I'll get on wiki briefly. Anyway, I suggest that both of you edit other articles until then when we could work something out—inshallah. I'm giving SD the same message. Cheers, -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 02:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arab Cowboy. Please have a look at my talk page. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. I am too busy with other matters anyway. The whole article matched the sources to the same extent. You can be selective all you want! Your blanking of only section of the article was double standards. -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 14:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
May this Ramadan and the next be full of blessings, -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Ameer. You seem to be a very nice guy. -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 09:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Btw, Ameer, please take a look at the Asmahan Talk page. I thought we had agreed that I was going to be given until the weekend to work on possible CVs in the Role in WWII section. You personally agreed to that, "Thanks, Ameer. Yes, you've done more good than bad. I will rewrite my sections in the weekend to word more differently than the source. I am busy till the weekend, so no pressing me on this till then. Salam, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks and no problem AC. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)." Unfortunately, before the weekend, SD went around making his trademark nagging complaints to another admin, CactusWriter, and that admin protected that specific section from further editing for CV. When I objected and stated that the whole article was written in a similar fashion, and I labelled the whole article (except for the lead) as such... very close to the sources, Cactus would not check the remainder of the artcile and finally blocked me. Cactus has then proceeded to delete the whole article, which was the same action that I had taken and which he described as desruptive and for which he blocked me, and restore the 11 July version of the article. Cactus has stated on the Talk page of the article that plagiarism started with your (Ameer's) own edit on 11 July. I do not have time to deal with WP in this ridiculous fashion... We have a very childish editor, SD, who would not stop at any lows to get his agenda through, and admins who do not wish to spend the time to review those childish complaints before they take action. Cactus blocked for taking an action (tagging the article as CV, as per his own criteria) that he personally later took. I also suspect that Cactus does not understand the definition of plagiarism. According to WP, 'Whether it is the result of deliberate deception, or improper attribution, duplicating the work of others without credit can bring both author and publisher into disrepute.' According to MW, "transitive verb: 1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own; 2) use (another's production) without crediting the source.' Clearly, the key is to credit the information, etc., to its respective sources, whether quoted or paraphrased. I do notunderstand his objections and his reasoning for wasting all of our collective efforts for more than a month. All the sentences in the Role in WWII section that Cactus judged as plagiarized were attributed to their reespective sources, not only the full sentences, but even as little as words copied from the sources. So, no credit was stolen from the sources and I do not see where plagirism could have been alleged. I am sending you this message as a shot in the dark, but I do not have too much hope that admins will diligently do the work that they volunteered to do. Take care. -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 10:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Arab Cowboy, from your messages above, it appears you have misunderstood the reason you were blocked. You received a block for persistent edit warring. The Asmahan article was only one place where this occurred. When I received a complaint about your editing behavior, a check of your contributions that day revealed a quick series of contentious blanket reversions, including antagonizing "vandalism" labels directed at an editor [1], [2], [3], and even a mislabeled copyright violation [4]. There was also the reversion, reversion, reversion, reversion at Asmahan. All these reversions occurred within a few hours. A check of your block log revealed you were blocked twice only last month [5], [6] for edit warring and disruptive editing. My block to prevent your continued disruption was justified per edit warring policy. You had been advised about this behavior previously. It was not new to you and you understood it. I suggest you try to understand that continuing in the same manner is unacceptable and disruptive.
I do understand that you have been in a continual "battle" with user SD. I know the problem has not been one-sided and I feel both of you both have been equally culpable. When I first arrived at Talk:Asmahan in response to a Copyright Violation Report, it took me only a minute to realize there was an extreme antagonism between the two of you. The next day, when SD asked me if was okay to delete information from Al-Atrash, I felt it necessary to warn SD about edit warring and improper POV-pushing. I also said then that I thought both of you were on the verge of topic bans. I still believe that. My suggestion is to avoid one another and do not alter each other's edits, but rather have a neutral third editor make changes for you.
As far as the copyright violations and the determination of plagiarism, that is an entirely different matter, but I will be happy to explain that to you. If you have questions, feel free to ask. — CactusWriter | needles 10:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ive filed request for Arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Asmahan -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, hmwith ☮ 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
File:Aleya Al Menzer and her Children.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Aleya Al Menzer and her Children.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Aleya Al Menzer and her Children.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 06:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop#Case workflow management. Let me know if you need assistance, hmwith ☮ 17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I have posted the first round of questions on the Workshop. John Vandenberg ( chat) 17:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Your evidence is over the length limit, which is 1000 words. Please shorten it or it will be cut off at 1000 words. Thanks, hmwith ☮ 18:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Marhaba Arab Cowboy. Thanks for pointing out those edits at the Pope Shenouda article. I found a lot of it to be biased and added some tags and a section at the talk page explaining why the article needs neutrality work. However, I haven't been active lately and won't be so active in the near future, at least for a few more months, so I don't really want to enter the Omar Sharif controversy, but I might take a quick look at it. Cheers! -- Al Ameer son ( talk) 22:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.
Uninvolved administrators may perform escalating blocks on editors who do not abide by these remedies.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Seddon talk| WikimediaUK 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Are you still there? SD is acting up again on Asmahan! -- Nefer Tweety ( talk) 09:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
For abuse of alternate accounts, you are banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case until June 15, 2010. If you violate this ban through either your main account or through sockpuppets, you will be blocked. NW ( Talk) 18:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=335663771#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Asmahan -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No it's not wrong if I correctly source it. some of the most liberal intellects in the Middle east from Algeria to relate by Pan-Arabism with facism and Nazism.This is the problem with pan-arabists you want to force your opinion with even those who disagree with it read the book The origins of totalitarianism then tell me I am the only one who thinks or argues that. Pan-Arabism is a racist and failed ideology. Which has the victims of many innocent people. Arabism is racism!, it is one of the most racist ideology ever to exist, it has been embedded with bigotry of its ultra nationalism against all non-Arabs or forcing the Label onto to non arabs and comitting cultural genocide (as well real life genocide like the farhud in Iraq and massacre in Darfur) since its inception, past and currect main victims of its racism include: Kurds (mainly in Iraq & in Syria), Berbers (in north Africa), Jews (Jewish victims of Arabism were even before Israel's re-establishment and today include not just in the middle east), black Africans (mosly in the Sudan, Mauritania, Egypt, but not exclusively) and Christians (Egypt and Lebanon) who have fell victim to this ideology. ♥Yasmina♥ ( talk) 14:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Is there any place online I can find this interview with Sharif where he denies that his family is of Lebanese origin? I really dont care if he is Egyptian or Lebanese or Russian, but we have to go with the sources. nableezy - 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arab_Cowboy -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below.
NW (
Talk)
22:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Marhaba AC, long time no see (virtually that is)
-- Al Ameer son ( talk) 04:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Please do not email me again. If you want to request an unblock, do so on this talk page. It might help if your entire message doesn't consist of insulting the blocking administrator. NW ( Talk) 14:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Arab Cowboy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please see responses to blocking admin above. By NW's admission, the sanction covered article Talk pages only and NOT noticeboards. I did not see the extension from Talk pages to noticeboards and do not agree with it. If he had wanted noticeboards to be covered by his sanction, then he should have stated so in no uncertain terms. He should also have alerted me to the possible violation, issued a warning if found no cooperation, solicited input from other arbitrators since he was the sanction imposing admin and has a history with me during appeal, and then allowed others to decide this case. This admin is self -serving.
Decline reason:
There is a categorical difference between a page ban and a topic ban. The former deals with restrictions upon particular sets of pages; the latter deals with a broad topic. If you were topic banned on anything related to the discussion of "gay individuals," then that topic ban can carry over not only onto articles, but into noticeboards and associated discussion pages. Declining unblock due to topic ban violation. seicer | talk | contribs 06:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Arab Cowboy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I ask that Cactus Writer judge this case. Cactus was behind the dismissal of the case linked above because of a "literal" reading of the topic ban, and he has been consistently "literal" in the reading of all policies and bans. Why is this suggested "liberal" interpretation applied to me now? Someone please ask Cactus to rule here. -- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 07:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are not entitled to have specific admins review your requests. This request does not address the reason for your block and is therefore declined. Sandstein 07:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Arab Cowboy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The previous unblock requests DID address the reasons of the block. However, Sandstein requires an EXPLICIT challenge of the reasons of the block each and every time. I reiterate, the sanction placed by NW on 31 December 2009 DID NOT EXPLICITLY apply to Noticeboards (not even once) and I never understood it to do so. If he had intended it to apply to noticeboards, he should EXPLICITLY stated it in the ban. "I do not read minds", as Sandstein said on his Talk page. I DEMAND a literal reading of the ban and not a "liberal" one and I point you to this precedent where a literal reading of the TOPIC ban was upheld and editing of Talk pages was not found actionable. Why are you discriminating in the reading of the topic bans, once literally, and now liberally as you please? Why are you biased in favor of certain editors and POVs? Your bias and discrimination is too apparent and it is making Wikipedia a sorry place to be! Go ahead and block my talk page too, for this insanity is what I have come to expect from you.
Why did NW not issue an alert or warning on the noticeboard to possible violations of a "liberal interpretation" that was only in his mind? I upheld NW's topic ban on article Talk pages as per the wording thereof, and I was NOT subject to any restrictions on Noticeboards. Is the reason for the block sufficiently addressed now?
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
-- Arab Cowboy ( talk) 10:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Arab Cowboy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Sir, I have reviewed all aspects of this block and am declining the unblock request. The point is almost moot as the block will expire in a few hours. Nevertheless you should know that the block is appropriate for the following reasons. First, your block did include "associated talk pages" of articles within the scope of the case. It is only wikilawyering to assert a Noticeboard was not included. Second, it was your editing on a topic that got you into trouble, therefore the remedy was to prevent your editing in a broad way within that area. Third, it is not reasonable to conclude that you can move from one venue to another to evade a ban. The topic you were discussing at the noticeboard was the same as that which got you into trouble. I would suggest that you remove yourself from the stress for a few more hours and return with an intent to edit collectively and with your colleagues here instead of against them. Let this issue pass. JodyB talk 11:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Please include a decline or accept reason.
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.
AC, User:Luna Santin just notified me of this block and asked me to comment. I see that JodyB has already explained some of the situation. Essentially, the limits of the bans for you and SD are not the same -- so pointing to the other AE decisions doesn't follow. Yes, initially, you both received the same topic bans -- which still permitted use of article talk pages. However, after the Medjool incident, Nuclear Warfare expanded your topic ban to include all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case. Generally, it is understood that that means all pages in Wikipedia which discuss those articles. I'm sorry if you were not clear about the scope of that ban. Arbitrators and administrators will often add the term "broadly construed" when banning editors from talk pages so it is clear that notice boards and project discussion pages are included -- although that wording is usually unnecessary for more experienced editors like yourself. (I will include that language on the case page so that there is no further doubt). Of course, the ban does not include your own talk page -- for example, I see that the discussion above with Nableezy about Omar Sharif is perfectly acceptable and productive.
The bottomline is this: During the time period of your topic ban, you must avoid edits or discussion about any article within the scope of the Asmahan case. I'm certain you have other articles on which you are collaborating and will occupy your time during the following months. In the meantime, there are only a few hours left on the current block, so I hope you will take the time to relax away from Wikipedia. — CactusWriter | needles 19:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 04:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our
guide to appealing blocks first.
Tim Song (
talk)
02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:
You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot ( opt-out) 03:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Fraid al-Atrash and Samia Gamal.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 18:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Asmahan in her last film.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Al-Gamea in Al-Gamea Square (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Baron Palace (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Baron Palace Gardens (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Old Inhabitants 2 (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Palace Hotel 4 (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Palace Hotel 5 (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soad Hosny and Abdel-Halim Hafiz.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soad Hosny's Birth Certificate.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Asmahan in her last film.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. czar 17:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)