User talk:Abidreh

{{Unblock on hold|I will respect all people on wikepedia even though i may disagree with them. I aplogise to anybody I upset wrongly and in the future i will try to stick to Wikepedia guidlines)}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Both Steve and YM said OK. But this is the last chance

Request handled by: Daniel Case (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Pashtun people

Thank you for your contribution to the Pashtun people article. But please don't list districts of Pakistan in the lead intro, that kind of detailed information goes in the demography section or else where. There are Pashtuna in Lahore, Karachi, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, but we also don't need that in the lead intro. Thank you.--PosePetal (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Attock bridge4.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Attock bridge4.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 13:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Fort9.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Fort9.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 13:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Indefinitely to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 23 April 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didnt know it was against wikepedia rules to do more then three consecutive edits, as the person who was editing my work yellowmonkey also did three edits but used different accounts to do the edits and he wasnt blocked??.

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Also, YellowMonkey and YellowAssessmentMonkey are the same person, and he only reverted three times. You reverted four times. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:38, 23 April 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand now doing more then 3 consective undo in a 24 hour period is against wikepedia guidlines and it wont happen again. But can i also put in a complaint against yellowmonkey as he was being rude to me and called my sources stupid

Decline reason:

If this was your first block ever I would probably agree with the comments below. However, it was made abundantly clear last time you were unblocked that it was your last chance. You have nobody but yourself to blame for blowing that chance. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 23 April 2010 (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 would unblock if I was the reviewing administrator. Being indefinitely blocked for edit warring is not very nice. However, I would like this user to see WP:NICETRY, unblock request number 3. Blaming someone else in an unblock request is not a very good unblock request. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the complaint I have with yellowmonkey is a seperate issue to my unblock request. I would like to know how I can make a formal complaint against yellowmonkey who I feel has treated me badly removing my work and calling it stupid, and making false alligation about my sources being supermacist "rm stupid source and pov by Pashtun supremacist pov pusher" (yellowmonkey) I even tried putting the issues concerning the matter in the user talk page, but still he did not take any notice and removed my work. Also I have noticed him in the past were he will have his friends to do his edit wars for him, so each friend will undo my work 3 times and then sombody else will undo it 3 trimes. Abidreh (talk)

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).

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

Request reason:

I think the administrators are being very harsh with me as i didnt know the three undo rule. Why am i being penalised so harshly for a rule i didnt know existed. Surely there has to be some leanacy for people learning the rules of wikepedia as they go on?

Decline reason:

I have gone trough your edits, and trough the previously deleted version of your talk page. You have gotten yourself into an edit war before, so you should have had some experience at least with edit wars and the 3rr rule. To sum it up i see:

4 previous blocks.
11 unblock requests in total.
A block log that states "Last Change".
Several civility issues.
Just over 200 edits (To put the amount of blocks in context).

Besides, your unblock request should be a reflection upon your own behavior, and not upon the behavior of other users. (see Wikipedia:NICETRY). I am not convinced this won't happen again. If you had a clear log with no previous history i would have unblocked you, but seeing the impressive block log which apparently didn't help i am denying your request. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:05, 24 April 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Ive been blocked for some time now. I am now more familier with wikepedia policies and will stick to the rules

Decline reason:

You'll need to demonstrate a deeper understanding of the issues that led to your block, rather than a simple "I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies". TN X Man 13:00, 26 June 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.

(Non-administrator comment)I wouldn't be against an unblock here. The editor has been blocked for well over a year and I think a new chance may be in order. It is possible that this editor will come back and be very productive. I would suggest that this editor go through a mentorship process. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]