User talk:Uishaki/Archive 4

WP:ARBPIA alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayran

Hi. You recently added a category (Arab cuisine) to the Ayran page. Your edit was reverted, removing that category from the page. I then reverted the revert, adding back the category to the page. You then reverted my revert of the first revert, deleting that category from the page. Are you sure you didn't do this in error? If you do want the Arab cuisine category included @ Ayran, then why remove it the next day? Fleetham (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2014 Palestine International Championship for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2014 Palestine International Championship is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Palestine International Championship until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Murry1975 (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Your recent editing behavior was brought to my attention via the edit warring noticeboard. After review, I am applying the following sanction:

The following sanction now applies to you:

Effective immediately (that is, at 08:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)), you are placed under a zero-revert restriction for all articles subject to the existing 1RR authorized by the ARBPIA arbitration case, which is defined as: "any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict... When in doubt, assume [the article] is related." This restriction applies for one week and expires at 08:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

You have been sanctioned because of your recent editing behavior at at Palestine League and Falafel, in order to prevent any escalation of tensions in this sensitive topic area.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. —Darkwind (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Edenc1 • Talk 17:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Challenge Cup

Afghanistan and Laos did not one score. Why do you think the score is 1-0? Who score? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Younis7435 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the AFC Report Afghanistan 0-0 Laos--Uishaki (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Massacres committed by Zionists

Template:Massacres committed by Zionists has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Uishaki. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 19:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

May 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ramzi Saleh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'''Ramzi Saleh''' ({{lang-ar|رمزي صالح}}); born 8 August 1980) is a [[Palestinian people|Palestinian]] [[Association football|footballer]]. He plays as a [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content, as you did at Night of the Bridges, Battle of Buqqar Ridge, Battle of Beersheba (1917) you may be blocked from editing. You have already been blocked once for that kind of violations and it's only a matter of time before you are blocked again. Infantom (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated 1RR

You have violated the one-revert restriction on Battle of Beersheba (1917), Battle of Buqqar Ridge, and Night of the Bridges.

Please self-revert (undo your last edit) or I will report you for the edit-warring violation. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned earlier about making bad-faith accusations about other editors' religions.[1] Please stop. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack block

I have blocked you for 72 hours for this personal attack. You can use {{unblock}} to request an unblock. See also WP:GAB.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

What was personal attack with that?? I do not deserve this unfair block. Why always warning and blocking me for tenuous reasons and leave the others User:Noon, User:Infantom, User:Edenc1 involved in this edit conflict free to edit? Just take a look at my contributions and see that i provided sources and wanted to resolve the conflict by dialogue but it was those users who reverted my edits because it was a so called "propaganda" and "bias". I am very disappointed about the job administrators are doing here. Keeping a user who have spent 4 years quiet and barring him from correction of disastrous errors on the history of Arab-Israeli conflict. Honestly I got sources in my native language Arabic for example the Palestinian Information Center so have this been a crime to use sources that one understand. However they never accept it. I don't know what the difference between my and theirs edits. Also see what User:Edenc1 wrote on his talkpage and his removing of stuff on my private userpage because it's "antisemitic". See how many times User:Noon, User:Infantom reverted controversially and the text on their editsummaries. None of them sought fruitful discussion on the talkpage of all articles concerned. I only wants justice and law to be applied on everyone here not just a group.Uishaki (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you honestlyThe claim that you don't see how calling someone a "zionist terrorist" is a personal attack is either entirely disingenious or indicates you aren't suited to edit Wikipedia. Regardless of what other people might or might not have done, you made a blatant personal attack, and have been, accordingly, blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:24, 5 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't call anyone as "zionist terrorist". STOP this fabrication!! I am the most suited person to edit Wikipedia instead of those liars. They distort the image of Wikipedia. None of them adopt neutrality, just editing for the israeli side and promoting zionist propaganda. See this user AmirSurfLera how he reverts edits without giving any valid reasons. I seeks justice and not punish because I'm anti-Israeli. For example The Bushranger support Israel without any harassment from others. However when I expressed my anti-Israeli feelings, I became involved in an edit conflict with an amateur editor because my frankness irritated him. I seeks justice and punishment to all users who think themselves above the law here. Uishaki (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I seeks justice and punishment to all users who think themselves above the law here"… well, I'm not sure you understand the purpose of this website. See Wikipedia:There is no justice. Wikipedia is not for meeting out justice nor punishment, nor for "expressing anti-Israeli feelings" or anti-, or pro- anything else feelings, nor is it for insulting other users. I'm surprised you only got 72 hours, since the personal attack in question was merely the climax of a series of disruptive edits, including egregious 1RR violations. Your requests for unblock are getting worse, too. If you make no attempt to conform to site standards (see Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, which you have already been referred to), you will lose access to this page. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 5 June 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.

I've increased your block duration to two weeks from today for block evasion by 81.191.188.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).--Bbb23 (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uishaki,

Several of our edits are good and others are controversial. You should pay more attention to this and try to get consensus on the talk page.

Anyway, you have an entered in a spiral that will lead you to the indefinite ban if you don't stop this.

Just for yourself, please, respect the "block" conditions and take benefit of this time to rest but don't try to evade your block. You will be caught for sure and this will be doubled in time at each case.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nayef Hawatmeh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palestinian (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) 08:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Operation Protective Edge

Hi Uishaki,

I removed a recent post you made to Talk:Operation Protective Edge since it was more about commenting on the on going conflict rather than improving the article. Please just stick to talking about how to improve the article, that would be helpful and in the spirt of the project. Thanks! --Malerooster (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

==Your userpage==

Hi, Uishaki. Your userpage keeps getting vandalized by dynamic IPs. Would you like me to semiprotect it so that IPs can't edit it? Bishonen | talk 23:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yes off course.--Uishaki (talk) 23:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, after a lot of edit conflicts. The xx.55 IP has been blocked. If they return with another IP, I'll semi this page as well. Bishonen | talk 23:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Semiprotected. Bishonen | talk 23:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For all your help tonight 5 albert square (talk) 01:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated 1RR

You have violated the one-revert restriction on Operation Protective Edge.

Please self-revert (undo your last edit) or I will report you for the edit-warring violation. Thank you. Brad Dyer (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit?--Uishaki (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your last one (where you removed a "see also" link. Brad Dyer (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Operation Protective Edge. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Mike V • Talk 22:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this is for a violation of WP:1RR per the active arbitration remedies.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have not violated the one revert rule posed on Operation Protective Edge. I only removed wrong IP edits (185.13.202.215, 74.113.190.218, 85.250.79.187, 84.111.144.105 and 99.225.228.149) and those are excluded from this rule. Why are you only punishing me for mistakes committed by the Zionists who wants to own and abuse Wikipedia. Most contributes on that article are reverting like me several times the disruptive edits by IPs but as usually you ignors it and wake up only when I fight the vandalism and block me instead of those vandals. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has become a toy in the hands of global Zionism. Uishaki (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You did add back the same contentious material, twice within 24 hours, which is exactly what the 1RR restriction is designed to prevent. As to the other blather, it doesn't apply to an unblock so I've ignored. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:08, 16 July 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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Once again. I only removed wrong IP edits (185.13.202.215, 74.113.190.218, 85.250.79.187, 84.111.144.105 and 99.225.228.149) and those are excluded from this rule! Is that right or not? Uishaki (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Learn something new each day, and hopefully you will as well. Rather than walk away, I took you at good faith and did some digging around. 1RR isn't a common rule we admin have to worry about, and not all 1RR rules are the same in all areas of the encyclopedia. Looking at the original Arb ruling, yes, IPs are exempted although still subject to standard 3RR rules [2]. Note that the last one to revert you was a registered user, so don't revert again today. I'm unblocking you and pinging Mike V. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:03, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not excluded by any stretch of the imagination. Your reverts [3], [4] and [5] ADDED BACK material that was contentious. You didn't revert vandalism (read WP:VANDAL for what is and isn't vandalism) you were edit warring over content that is very loaded. You were only blocked 24 hours, less than your last edit warring block, so that is pretty kind, if you think about it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Thanks for finding that out and correcting the mistake. 1RR is not something I frequently encounter and I missed the part about IPs being exempt in this specific subset of articles.

Uishaki, I apologize for the error with the block. I do hope that you will consider the spirit of the 1RR rule and raise your concerns on the talk page in the future. I understand that the Arab-Israeli topics can be highly contentious and many of our editors and readers are emotionally, and some even physically, involved in the subject matter. Keeping this in mind, I ask that you be mindful of your contributions to the article, strive to source it reliably, seek the assistance of others to word it neutrally, and encourage others to work collaboratively in a similar fashion. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Honestly, I would have made the same mistake, and did on the first unblock review. It is the first 1RR exception I've ever seen with an IP exception. I normally don't patrol I/P articles. Fortunately, his second request wasn't padded with opinion and I took it serious enough to research a bit and was just as shocked as you were. We admins don't know everything, we can't, but we will work together to correct good faith errors when we find them. I think the note I made in the unblock will show that the original block was a good faith error. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reactions to Operation Protective Edge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basque Country. 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) 09:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nomination - Shuja'iyya massacre

Please see article's talk page for details.

Speedy deletion nomination of Shuja'iyya massacre

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Shuja'iyya massacre, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. The page has been nominated for deletion, in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Jersey92 (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3RR at Shuja'iyya Incident (2014)

Just a heads up, your at 3 reverts on the description of the incident as a massacre, and have made a number of other reverts to the article in the last 24 hours. Since you haven't been warned, I'll give you a break on the WP:3rr block, but you need to stop reverting and let other people guide the article for awhile. Reverting IPs is exempt from the 1rr rule applicable to Israel-Palestine articles, but is not exempt from the regular 3rr rule. Monty ₈₄₅ 01:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Shuja'iyya Incident (2014) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shuja'iyya Incident (2014) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shuja'iyya Incident (2014) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 05:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Druze sportspeople

I have declined your speedy deletion nomination, because I see no reason to call this a hoax. The Druze are evidently a distinct community. If you think this category should not exist, nominate it at WP:Categories for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AE

Please see [6]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 29 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Nayef Hawatmeh page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely topic banned from all pages and making any edit broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You may appeal this sanction after six months.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014 (update: erroneous block, now lifted)

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating the topic ban imposed above by editing the articles Palestinians in Syria and Nayef Hawatmeh, which are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Sandstein 06:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

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

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

Request reason:

I had not acknowledge of that Palestinians in Syria and Nayef Hawatmeh are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict because I was informed about the topic ban on 18:29, July 30 while I made my last edit on Palestinians in Syria on 02:42, July 30 also. Uishaki (talk) 11:26 am, Today (UTC+1)

Accept reason:

Procedural close of template, user is now unblocked Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yunshui, thanks for notifying me. The block was in error, I misread the timestamps of the last edits and the topic ban, respectively. I am removing the block and the log entry. My apologies. Sandstein 11:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palestinians in Syria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page People's Council. 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) 09:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

African football TASK FORCE

User:Davykamanzi is pushing for the creation of an African football task force at WikiProject Football given the recent spike in articles regarding African football competitions and their seasons. Would be great if you went there and signed up given the work you've done on such articles.

--Lglukgl (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Ebossé

Hi. Please start a discussion before undoing my work. As I explained to you, it takes a while to clean the sources and TO MERGE WITH YOUR WORK, because I kept what you did. Regards Lesviolonsdautomne (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest being hit on the pitch was being taken ill on the pitch, so he is a "player who dies whilst playing" as per the category definition.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOOOOOO, You are wrong read the player's article well "Bodjongo was struck on the head by a projectile thrown by one of the angry JSK fans while the teams were leaving the field at the end of a home game between JSK and USM Alger."--Uishaki (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This player died as a result of playing and he is eligible for including in that category. Please do not continue to revert, or else you might be blocked. Giant Snowman 17:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2019 AFC Asian Cup

Did you ask Bearcat? It should be just after 8:00 am in his time zone if I remember correctly and he may not have seen the notice yet. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is the one that protected it and Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for reduction in protection level says "Please post requests in this section for removing or reducing the protection level of a page if the protecting admin is inactive or you have already asked them." CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 21:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2019 AFC Asian Cup

Done per request — the vandalism was three years ago, so there's no longer a compelling reason why it needs to stay protected anymore. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Munir El Haddadi

I assume good faith, but please supply a source when you wish to move Munir's maternal surname to his middle name. As this diagram shows, in his mother's home city of Melilla, "Mohamed" is the most common surname. Munir is a natural-born Spanish citizen, thus he has his father's surname (El Haddadi) and for legal purposes his mother's surname (Mohamed) afterwards. It is actually known for males in Ceuta and Melilla to be called "Mohamed Mohamed Mohamed" as a result of these regulations. Thank you and happy editing '''tAD''' (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it know, and thanks for the clarification.--Uishaki (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use sensible tags

To tagged two pages by 1997Vzla (talk · contribs) for deletion as nonsense. These tags were themselves nonsense. The proper reason could have been given thus: {{db|unwanted fork of …}}. I am also very dubious about your "hoax" tags on three other articles by 1997Vzla but I will leave another admin to deal. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating the topic ban imposed above by editing the article War on Terror, which is related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped." Administrators who reverse this block without the clear authorisation described in that procedure will be summarily desysopped.

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).

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

Request reason:

The War on Terror are not related to WP:ARBPIA, so I should not be blocked.Uishaki (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Addressing only your claim in this request and not your actions that got you here, the premise of your request is fatally flawed. According to WP:ARBPIA itself, the scope of the restrictions are broad and extend beyond a singular list of articles. Compounding this is the summaries listed below by Dougweller, clearly demonstrating that your actions fall within the guidelines of ARBPIA. Arb sanctions are not designed to protect a list of articles, they are about avoiding disruption in a broad and general topic area, whether that disruption is in an article, on a project page, or even your own talk page. The target article is irrelevant, it is the specific actions that are covered by sanctions. I will also note that Dougweller chose to block you for only one week, whereas a 2 to 4 week block is typical for a second violation. I suggest spending the time reviewing or getting help understanding what is and isn't acceptable under this ban. If requested, I would be glad to spell it out in more detail, as would a number of others, so we don't end up here again. — Dennis 2¢ 16:49, 28 September 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 edit[7] with the edit summary "(Hamas, Islamic palestinian jihad, PLO is irrelevant)", [8] with the edit summary " Remove material by israeli propagandist; Hamas and PIJ are national liberation movements)" and [9] with the edit summary " (how is israel a belligerent???)" are very clearly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. — Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Uishaki". The reason given for Uishaki's block is: "Arbitration enforcement: Violating WP:ARBPIA topic ban by editing [[War

Blocking administrator: Dougweller (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Your 7 day block has now expired, so I've removed the autoblock. PhilKnight (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Champions League and other issues

Hi again,

Sorry for a very long message but it explains a lot of things and possibly why things went as they did tonight. Please read even if it is very long as it may help you from being blocked in the future (which may happen if you continue like this).

I made subsections to improve reading and you can comment each section individually if you want.

I am opening this thread/discussion for clearing the air after what has happened tonight and to give my version of everything. Feel free to ignore it, but I would like to discuss this and perhaps you (and I) can learn something as you have already been blocked 9 times and it would not be good for you to be blocked again. QED237 (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies and warnings

First of all I am sorry if I offended you in any way, I got tired of you updating to early and that scores has to be changed after your edits because of last minute goals, but that does not give me the right to use the words I did. However I stopped Immediately when I was told to stop, [10] and after that you continued yourself, [11] and [12], so I told you to stop, [13]. Then you gave me a complete improper final warning, [14], back as some sort of revenge even if I had stopped earlier which our timestamps of the diffs shows. It seems like you were interested in some sort of war (and you have been blocked for edit warring in the past), but as I said sorry for my choice of words. QED237 (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect scores

As I mentioned above you almost always edit a few minutes before the matches has ended and thus adding the wrong score and result for some matches and incorrect standings tables. Then correction edits has to be made after you and I got tired of it. When we other editors want to add correct score we get edit conflict just because you were "first" and updated a minute before when match was not ended. When those edits are incorrect it is frustrating. That is not acceptable so please wait until you are completely sure matches has ended and you add the correct score otherwise it is disruptive editing and you may be blocked again. A good way is to see when matches end at UEFA.com livescore center. I always updated directly when they end there.

Here are some examples of incorrect edits, being corrected immediately after:

[15] (add score 0-0 for Ludo-Basel that ended 1-0) which was corrected after some reverting here [16] (it was also incorrect blue color but will come to that later).
[17] (add score 4-0 for Ath-MFF that ended 5-0) which was corrected after some reverting here [18] (incorrect standings order but will come to that in next section).
[19] (add score 2-2 for Macedonia-Luxemburg that ended 2-3) which was corrected here [20]

You have also been told about this in the past, [21], so please make sure you add correct scores and that the final whistle is blown. Wikipedia is not for instant updating so if you wait an extra minute or two checking your edit that wont be a bad idea. QED237 (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rules and tiebreakers

When updating tables please make sure you are familiar with all regulations and tiebreakers so you put teams on the correct places and also adds correct colors of poromtion and elimination on the correct team (will take color in section below). To many times order of teams has to be changed after you when you add incorrect order. In FIFA competition teams are ordered based on goal differential. UEFA on the other hand uses head-to-head results as first tiebreaker. When three or more teams have same points it is still head-to-head but with those three teams so you make a new minor table with the results of the matches between those teams.

Here are some examples were order of teams had to be corrected:

[22] you put Madrid ahead of Olympiacos when olympiacos did beat athletico and head-to-head is tiebreaker, this was corrected later by IP [23].
[24] here you put according to goal diff again even if it is head-to-head record, later fixed by me [25], but I made minor error that was also corrected [26]. Then you made a edit I cant explain [27] dont know where that order comes from.
[28] You put albania ahead of denmark when denmark is ahead on head-to-head (away goal), later corrected [29]
[30] germany ahead of ireland when ireland should be ahead on tiebreaker (no head-to-head since they had not met), fixed after your edit [31].

As I said please make sure you got all the offical rules and tiebreakers in mind when updating. Your way of reverting after someone corrects the order shows you dont know and in examples above there are several different users all correcting order after you. The tiebreakers are often listed at the article for the tournament. QED237 (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Calculations of possible qualification and colors

I have seen you adding incorrect colors for qualification and elimination for teams and insisting you are right not listening to others.

For example when putting blue on real madrid, [32] several times. For Real madrid case all 4 teams can get 9points and then Real Madrid may be last placed team, this will happen if all of them beat real and then win one each against eachother, i.e. Ludo beats Basel, Basel beat Liverpool and Liverpool beat Ludo.

In the same way you said RSA can not finish last (4th) [33] even if others did not agree [34] [35], and it was also discussed at your talkpage where you admitted you were wrong [36]

Even if you admitted you were wrong you had warned the IP for not agreeing with you on RSA and now tonight you warned him again for removing blue color on Real Madrid even if it should not be blue [37] and on top of all of that you did not let IP remove the warnings on his own talkpage. That is disturbing to me. I know you think I am that IP but I am not and you can see that because I have never updated the african cup article. I suggest an appology to the IP. QED237 (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improper warnings

This is the most serious section that may lead to a long block if it is continued. You warned an IP two times (seen at [38]) and you also suddenöy gave me a final warning, [39], for something I had stopped doing just as a revenge. I explained you above why those warnings were incorrect and still when the IP clears his talkpage, as he is allowed to, it is his own talkpage, you revert his talkpage and re-insterts the warnings and remove my comment in the process, [40] saying to him not to do it again (seems like a threat). This is highly inappropriate behaviuor and could easily have you blocked. Not only do you incorrect warn a user you remove comments of others (mine) and edit war with editor on his own talkpage. When I saw this I was very tempted to report you, and I strongly suggest you appologise to the IP as a sign you knew you were wrong or after I have slept on it I may report you anyway. QED237 (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

You have been blocked nine times and still seem willing to "war" with editors is not a good sign. Also you edit to fast with wrong score, put up incorrect order in standings, put wrong teams as qualified (wrong colors) and you put improper warnings to editors when infact they did everything right and you were wrong. This while you insists you are right and goes in to reverting what is correct and hands out warning to editors who dont agree with you. I find that concerning so I suggest you take a step back a think before editing, as this is common mistakes when edits happen to fast. Everyone can put teams in wrong order (showed you I did), but when challenged discuss it with them and ask "why did you use that order" and so on instead of just reverting back as history shows you are most likely the one who is wrong. This editing can not continue and if you are blocked again I fear this time it may be a long block (lets hope it does not happen). I also suggest (as I said) you look at the edits you warned the IP for and realise they were not wrong and appologise to that editor.

I hope you read this as it is very informative and may stop you from being blocked again. QED237 (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]