User talk:محمد البكور

Re:Sabotage in Page Rafael Nadal

Hello!

What the user is doing isn't sabotage; that's an inappropriate word to use in this case.

I was actually reviewing the last edits to the article when I received your message and would have replied immediately, except that someone called me away from the computer.

You seem to be editing the article right now, so I'll wait till later this hour before modifying it.

BTW, it is unnecessary to say that Nadal failed to advance to the final in 2006 and 2007, because it already says that 2010 was his first final. SamEV (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry; the article's not being sabotaged. It's just normal for editors to disagree about the content and, well, everything.

I'll certainly keep an eye on the article. Cheers. SamEV (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Di María at the Santiago Bernabeu 2010 vs Peñarol.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Di María at the Santiago Bernabeu 2010 vs Peñarol.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Delete important information in Rafael Nadal

Hi.

The 2010 section, at least, did need a trim because it was too verbose. But I'm not completely pleased with the changes, so I may put back a bit of content that was taken out, but not much, and probably not this evening (it may require some rewriting). The Nadal and Shakira image is not allowed because it has an owner. Images have to be free or they have to be really needed; it's a little bit complicated. SamEV (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rafael Nadal, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Tennis Matches - 25/2/2011

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Tennis Matches - 25/2/2011. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - 2011 Abierto Mexicano Telcel. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at 2011 Abierto Mexicano Telcel - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. N419 BH 01:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matches Tennis daily

Hello. Can you please clarify in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Matches Tennis daily what you meant to appeal in 2011 ATP World Tour and what was the purpose of creating Category:Matches Tennis daily and its related Commons equivalent? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 12:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. roh. (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

# of photos discussion at ProjectTennis

Because of the photo dispute at Rafael Nadal I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis to get input from other editors. Please join in so that every viewpoint can be debated. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Please stop adding images to the Rafael Nadal article. A discussion on the article's talk page is under way and it's clear that most people think there are far too many images on that article. You've made four reverts in a short time so you're in violation of the Three Revert Rule. If you revert again, I'll report you on the relevant noticeboard. Absconded Northerner (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue to edit war, I have reported you as promised. See here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of WP:AN/EW report

Hello محمد البكور,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 20:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 Hours for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

# of pics (again)

I've asked you to add your input to this subject at WikiProjectTennis to no avail it would seem. Instead you are right back to adding a mountain of photos. I reverted it, as others have done, and ask you again to discuss it on the ProjectTennis talk page before adding the same stuff. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive Editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, a few days ago, you were blocked for edit warring. After that block expired, you returned to repeat the same behavior that resulted in a block of your account in the first place. Since you have obviously learned nothing from your last block, you are blocked indefinitely until you decide that you are ready to edit collaboratively. Administrators, please DO NOT unblock this user without first consulting me. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:11, 13 July 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please don't prevent me from entering the Wikipedia, I like Wikipedia a lot and I can't stay away from them, please

I don't want to sabotage, but they are of sabotage, I have understood it and will not repeat the error again, please don't prevent me from Wikipedia i'm so sorry محمد البكور (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have not given a clear indication that you understand the reason for your block and will not continue to edit in the same way. You need to make that really clear if you are to be unblocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 14 July 2011 (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.

Hi. I appreciate your first language is probably not English, but I have to say I don't really understand what "I don't want to sabotage, but they are of sabotage" is intended to mean. I suspect there is some language-based misunderstanding here, so I'd like to make a suggestion. Rather than just saying you understand, can you explain exactly what you did that resulted in this and the previous block, explain why it was not acceptable, and explain how you will approach similar situations in future? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my language main, Therefore, there may be some grammatical errors, I meant in the sentence did not understand you that my intention is not vandalism on Wikipedia, but the contrary, I love the encyclopedia much all my time I spend here, but what do the editors delete all images from a page Rafael Nadal shocked me a lot because I always look for new images of Nadal, now has I understand that the work here is based on the principle of sharing, so I hope the removal of this prohibition and will not be repeated again

Best regards محمد البكور (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Edit warring and WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and confirm below that you have understood them. There is are versions on the Arabic Wikipedia at ar:ويكيبيديا:حرب_تحرير_الصفحات and ar:ويكيبيديا:دجان which may help you to understand them, but you should read the English versions too, because each Wikipedia has its own rules, and I do not know what the Arabic versions say. JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the ban me please, Please I like Wikipedia a lot and I can not stay away from them محمد البكور (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the pages I linked to just above? Do you understand them? JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, I read it and understood well, please help me please محمد البكور (talk) 05:45, 15 July 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am very, very sorry, please forgive me, I did not do something to block itلا محمد البكور (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You DID do something that got you blocked, and although you have been provided links to the policies that you violated, you still seem to not understand. Please read this article and this policy and explain to us how YOUR ACTIONS violated those concepts, and how you will not do it again...only then will it be possible to unblock you (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 15 July 2011 (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.

I think the unblock process is very harsh here. It appears محمد البكور has been blocked due to edit warring on the Rafael Nadal page, but clearly the user was not familiar with the relevant Wikipedia policies. More importantly, I believe it's apparent his actions were done in good faith. Indefinitely blocking a user who contributes regularly in a positive manner with the aim of improving articles is fundamentally wrong, and that seems to be the situation here. I think the humiliation of forcing him to self-confess his previous error is unnecessary in this case for the following reasons:

1. He is definitely capable of editing collaboratively, evidenced by his engagement in discussions for Talk:2010–11_Real_Madrid_C.F._season and Talk:2011–12_Real_Madrid_C.F._season

2. A reason he has not clearly demonstrated his acknowledgment of error is because English is not his native language, and it is very difficult to understand the appeal process and construct an explicit statement without a strong understanding of the English language. We should not discriminate against good faith users who have difficulty with English.

3. His emotional appeals seem adequate to me. I am strongly convinced he understands his error.

4. He is a positive contributor to numerous tennis- and football-related articles without a history of vandalism or disruption except for an isolated incident.

I think we should all just use common sense here and unblock a user who has historically been very beneficial to Wikipedia. In case he engages in a similar edit war again (which in this case seems unlikely to occur), then re-block him and force him to go through the formal unblock process. There exists no value in blocking a user who enjoys improving Wikipedia. Bobby (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I was one of those from ProjectTennis that he was reverting on the Nadal article and I feel that English language barrier has a lot to do with it. I also feel that he should be unblocked and I look forward to working with him. He needs to control his temper a bit and not threaten but many wikipedians are guilty of that and are never blocked to begin with. So sure I would cross my fingers while giving the guy a 3rd chance but if it was up to me, I would unblock him too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If an outsider's opinion is welcome, I stumbled upon this when I got here from someone else's talk page (I forget which, but it doesn't matter). I've silently been watching since the initial unblock request was made, and subsequently denied. I agree with "Bobby" and Fyunck(click). This user has a difficult time explaining himself in English. He has indicated that he read the policies and understands them. Given his difficulty with English, I don't think he's going to have an easy time trying to explain himself more than he already has. Give him a chance to prove himself; if he does wrong again in the future and an indef. is required, then so be it. CycloneGU (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My friends:

Bobby: Thank you very much to support me, you're a great friend

Fyunck (click): I cry Believe me, I was very stubborn, I know that, but my intention was to do good I swear, you're a wonderful person

CycloneGU: Thank you very much for your support to me

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

To administrators :

I'm already my English is not strong and I can't understand all the talk in the thread here WP:Edit warring and here WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle but I read the pages translated into Arabic and understand them well here ar:ويكيبيديا:حرب_تحرير_الصفحات and here ar:ويكيبيديا:دجان, and also asked me to explain to Mr. BWilkins what I understand:

Must not work more than three callbacks to the page in one day and that happened it would be a breach of the laws in Wikipedia and must rely on the sharing of collective and not individual action, must also resort to the pages of the debate at the time of editing warring solve the problem and you must be tactful and polite, because the basis of any successful work.

I at first I did not know the existence of these pages I swear I swear, but I now understand them well and i know what to do already and not, as in the past, Please Remove the block from me and I can't stay away from Wikipedia please.

I am very sorry.

Accept reason:

Good, it is clear you now understand what the problem was. Welcome back. JohnCD (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like you know what is expected of you now, and that is great. It's also nice that you had someone to help you find the Arabic versions of these pages; for me, personally, they're all Greek to me. =) CycloneGU (talk) 06:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely appears that he understands the problem now. I too support an unblock. Absconded Northerner (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited 2012 Qatar Open – Singles Qualifying, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Martin Fischer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jay Abdo

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jay Abdo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.imdb.com/search/text?realm=name&field=bio&q=Damascus. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 04:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, محمد البكور. 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]