User talk:Friday musa

Kindly reach me on this new page, thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of polytechnics in Nigeria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my notice, I'll make the necessary corrections as navigate my way through. Thanks Friday musa (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of universities in Nigeria

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of universities in Nigeria, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Kaura, Nigeria

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kaura, Nigeria, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Hello, I'm Arjayay. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jema'a, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jema'a. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dear @Arjayay thank you for that observation, but it should interest you to know that I am currently working on the article before it was removed. I have my sources and will be added immediately. kindly undo it so I can proceed with my editing.

Thanks! Friday musa (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can revert the article yourself, but references must be an integral part of editing, not a later add-on, whilst much of what I deleted appears tom be just your point of view, rather than facts that can be supported by citations. - Arjayay (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Izno (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for helping me to understand this policies better haven gone through them. I hereby appeal that my account be unlocked and going forward, I promise to adhere with the principles, guidelines and policies of editing wikipedia and to also train editors around me on the best practices. I will be glad if my appeal is considered. Friday musa (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As copyright violations potentially put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy, we must be convinced that you understand the reasons for the block. Please tell us in your own words, in a new request what Wikipedia's license is, what copyright is, and describe how to properly use copyrighted content on Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2024 (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.

@Izno, this user must be unblocked.

The user was blocked indefinitely without warning, even though he made good contributions for years. Blocks without warning must be used only for disruption-only accounts, and this is clearly not the case.

The user replied and said that he understands the mistake. He couldn't use the unblock template for a technical reason, so I fixed it for him. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amire80 Copyright violations are not a minor disruption, as they have legal implications that potentially put Wikipedia itself at risk. This is why the block was made with no notice. It is not accurate to say such blocks are for "disruption only accounts". 331dot (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it's a "minor" disruption. I said that one copyright violation from a user who has otherwise been a good editor for years is not a justification for indefinite blocking without warning.

Check Wikipedia:Blocking policy:

"Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these".
Blocking without warning is for disruption-only accounts
Copyright violation is a reason for blocking when it's persistent.

None of the above applies in this case.

If we apply the policy as it is written, the block was wrong in the first place, and rejecting this unblocking request is wrong, too. This is not a spam bot or a persistent violator. This is a human who made a mistake and admitted it. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Friday musa (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Amir; the immediate indef block for "persistent copyright violations" with zero previous warnings does seem excessive.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked based on this report to AIV. They had about 65 revisions deleted across multiple pages directly (Jema'a, Gezawa, Karaye) that I didn't personally delete (so, two other admins had to do work because of this user), and it is commonly the case that such users need to be investigated much longer, e.g. at WP:CCI, without early intervention (from my experience watching CCIers deal with chronic cases, "stop doing that" warnings are rarely enough). That was enough for me to issue a block for prevention of further disruption.

Copyright is a concern for indefinite, not infinite type stories, so I am not particularly concerned with the length of the block ultimately but instead whether the user understands the issue at hand. I am not personally convinced now with the appeal that we did get that this user has in fact understood what's wrong, given their appeal reads like it was written by an LLM in how vague it is to the specifics but with how sweepingly knowledgeable this block has made Friday musa (331dot appears to have picked up on this).

I prefer other admins (who are generally impartial) to judge my actions, so I do not generally participate in appeals discussion. But, I think it's not unreasonable to say I missed a warning here, so that is why I am commenting. I do think post-appeal it is insufficient to unblock solely because the block was premature. But I trust the other two admins who have appeared here to recognize the (non-)issues themselves and either or both of them have my blessing to act as they see fit. Izno (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through all the discussions here about this very topic, and I understand the severity of copy right violation to Wikipedia. I also understand Wikipedia consist of freely editable content with free licenses but this shouldn't be an avenue to copy content from other sites without checking its free licenses availability. But please understand I didn't do it intentionally or with intent for disruptions. I have read the policies over and again, I'm now familiar with the legal implications of copy right violation and I promised that going forward I'll trade very carefully to ensure nothing of this happens again.~~~~ Friday musa (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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

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

Request reason:

I was overwhelmed with contributing to the free knowledge initiative of Wikipedia and I missed out on going through the policies and guidelines but after being blocked, I went back to read the policies and I understand the severity of copy right violation to Wikipedia. I also understand Wikipedia consist of freely editable content with free licenses but this shouldn't be an avenue to copy content directly from other sites without checking its free licenses availability. But please understand, I didn't do it with intent for disruptions. I have read the policies over and again, I'm now familiar with the legal implications of copy right violation. And if unblock, I promised that going forward I'll tread very carefully to ensure nothing of this happens again and to educate other editors within my local community kcg.wikipedia.org of the implications of copy right violation and the need for best practices. Thank you for taking your time to go through my appeal as I wait patiently in good faith for your feedback. Friday musa (talk) 4:51 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

per discussion. User will not further violate copyright.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock. I have the administrator permissions, so technically I can do it myself, but I prefer not to because I am in a bit of a conflict of interest: since 2020, I have been involved with helping this user, as well as several other contributors to Wikipedia in the Tyap language. However, I am certain that this user made a mistake, understood it, and won't repeat it. As I've already written in the discussion above, the block was not done so correctly—without warning, and indefinitely. The claim that the user's response to the block was written using an LLM is especially odd and completely out of place.

So please, unblock this user. Thank you. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To all the Administrators who have dedicated their time cleaning up the wrongs of so many editors myself included and for those who were involved either directly or indirectly to the discussions on this very issue from the start down to this point I said a big thank to you all. This whole process have prepared me for something very differently and helped me to understand this policies better. Now that I have been unblocked, I promised to approach my editing very differently using the knowledge gained from understanding the policies and guidelines and to also encourage others to read it through because ignorance of the right thing might not exonerate one from the consequences.

Thank you all Friday musa (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]