User talk:Abdelrahman93

This is the talk page of Abdelrahman93.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:SalmanbinAbdulaziz.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:SalmanbinAbdulaziz.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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. January (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yemeni girl

this right here [1], is so unacceptable. You know you didn't take the picture yourself thus you do not own any copyrights to it. The picture is of a Nubian girl in Egypt! why did you post it as if it's of a Yemeni girl? --يوسف حسين (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

..أي هبل واستخفاف واحقاد خليها في مكان ثاني ياشاطر --يوسف حسين (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aoosa batba3 nfs alga3dht. Agoul leish la yrwg lk swrht bilqees aswad?Abdelrahman93 (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:LaReinaDeLaMusicaLatina.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:LaReinaDeLaMusicaLatina.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Afro-Latin American may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s and 2 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfroLatino

he figure in Venezuela is totally erroneous, the black population in Venezuela according to the population census conducted in 2011 representing 2.8% (ie, 181,157). It is illogical to enter figures populations "Multiracial" and that it will ronde more than 14 million figure, when the ethnographic distribution in Venezuela is dominated by 49.9% by the Mestizos and background 42.2% for whites. [2]

"Multiracial" is not "Black", it is necessary to differentiate Mestizo "Multiracial" because they are not the same. I correct the figures in the artioculo.

Likewise advance figures are also adulterated Colombia but I do not have references split change. «Jaam0121 (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)»[reply]

AfroLatinamerican

You should not undo the editing of the article, keep in mind that you are violating the rules of wikipedia. The article was amended as erroneous data is included and if you keep vandalism edits Might be reported and you will be blocked.

I recommend reading the wikipedia rules and take your time grinding on your contributions, Greetings.

«Jaam0121 (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)»[reply]

Afro-Latin American

I have started a discussion at Talk:Afro-Latin American about whether to use a social or genetic-based interpretation for the population figures. As you have edited these figures in the past I'm letting you know in case you have something to add. Tobus (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2013 (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).

Abdelrahman93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been accused a sockpupeting due to the fact that I review old edits for unnoticed vandalism reaching and reviewing 6 months worth of edits on every article Ive contributed to. Edits from users Jnosay and Inayity that I felt were productive, I built on. This sparked a discussion (a lengthy one at that, which led to the edits I restored being reviewed and tweaked slighty to up to date data. My contributions were in no way negative, abrasive, or sockpuppetry. My other concern is that my uploaded files are now being deleted for no reason. I was not contacted once about any illegitimacy concerning my account, but I have many times reached out for guidance and assistance. I have even been thanked by people "thumbs upping" my edits. I would hope someone could quickly diffuse this misunderstanding so that I might be able to return to contributing to Wikipedia, thank you.

Decline reason:

Seems clear that at a minimum you are the same editor as 107.210.128.53, which leads back to another blocked disruptive editor. You may want to be more transparent in your future requests. Kuru (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2014 (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.

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).

Abdelrahman93 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In my previous unblock request, I was accused of being a random IP address user, the only IP address I've ever used is 166.147.72.159, and that was only once before I created my account. I don't quite understand why my block is set to indefinite if I have never edited from that IP or have any association to JJJNosay. My account hasn't been disruptive nor do I or have I ever had multiple accounts. If my account shares an IP with a disruptive editor than that would be a different situation in which I could understand my block, but that was not the case in why I was blocked. Abdelrahman93 (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The checkuser evidence below appears to be fairly convincing. The standard offer, at the very least, would apply, should you choose to follow it. --slakr^\ talk / 23:04, 17 January 2014 (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.

JJJNosay (talk · contribs) is CU

Confirmed to be you. Ardah001 (talk · contribs) is also CU

Confirmed to be you. The IP you listed is a mobile IP and it's quite common knowlegde that mobile users almost never edit from the same IP. Yours is not one a special one. Curious enough, the IP you listed, this account has never edited from. CU says that you have edited from multiple IPs and from multiple ranges. Even without CU, it's quite blatant that you are block evading. Try something more convincing. Blatant lies are not going to get you unblocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:ClaraNunes.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:ClaraNunes.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate: you claim that this was taken from http://claranunesdeusadosorixas.blogspot.com/2009/05/boneca-clara-nunes-nacao.html, but that it is your own work and that you are the author and copyright holder. Please understand that finding a file on the Internet does not make it your own work, and does not make you the author or copyright holder.

Given the low resolution, lack of metadata, and the fact that you have a history of uploading copyright violations, I'm disinclined to believe that this is your own work. If it is indeed your own work, you should be able to send in a full-resolution version via e-mail as evidence. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Clara.Nunes.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Clara.Nunes.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]