User talk:Uishaki

This user may have left Wikipedia. Uishaki has not edited Wikipedia since 6 June 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

السلام عليكم سأتكلم معك بالعربية لأني لا اتقن الغة اﻷنجليزية إرجو ان تعود إلى ويكي العربية فهي بحاجة ماسة إليك شاهدة سجل منعك الدائم بأمكانك الدخول بحساب أخر وشكرآ جزيلا محمد 1515 (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

إن شاء الله خير أخي محمد، وشكراً على اهتمامك.--Uishaki (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. 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.

---

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 edit about Palestinian refugees in Lebanon violates your topic ban from WP:ARBPIA. These refugees have that status due to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The talk page at Talk:Palestinian refugee carries the ARBPIA banner. EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014–15 Liverpool F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joe Allen. 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) 09:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

user:Uishaki, please note that there is a discussion concerning your recent edits at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 17:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violation of your ARBPIA topic ban (note that this is in relation to these edits and not to the edits that prompted the AE request on the page Palestinians in Jordan, you have been blocked from editing for a period of a fortnight. 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. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:47, 30 December 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:

Why is that article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I didn't know this and was never warned to revert my edits. This is so unjustified against me. I only removed inappropriate changes on numbers made by the IP adress. It was Shrike who decided to add this article to the ARBPIA and he is clearly pro-Israeli. Uishaki (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The first few lines of the source you used are: "Jordan is bordered by Saudi Arabia to the north-west, Syria to the south, Iraq to the south-west, and Israel/Palestine to the east. It has access to the Red Sea via the port city of Aqaba, located at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba ( Following the 1948 Arab–Israeli war approximately 900,000 Palestinian refugees were forced to flee their towns, villages, and homes [...]." Are you seriously asking why that could be related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? We're not that dumb, and neither are you. Huon (talk) 14:43, 30 December 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.

User:HJ Mitchell, Why was Special:Contributions/79.112.123.78 not blocked also for breaching the 1 revert rule on Palestinians in Jordan?--Uishaki (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point wrt the IP, but those are their only two edits ever (at least using that IP) and there's nothing to indicate they knew about the 1RR. I've since created an editnotice for the article using {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}}, so any future reverts can be sanctioned appropriately. As to you unblock request, the article is clearly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's almost entirely about Palestinian refugees in Jordan, who became such as a result of that conflict (and a significant chunk of the article is devoted to the effects of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. It even has {{ARBPIA}} on the talk page. And I strongly suggest you strike your personal attack on Shrike, or the likely result will be that your block will be extended and your ability to edit this talk page will be revoked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a disagreement between me and the IP because of the numbers. He reduced the numbers and came with other sources without any convincing reason. I could not watch these disruptive edits and stay silent.--Uishaki (talk) 14:32, 30 December 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:

I did not violate the topic, I only removed disruptive edits made by the IP. Could someone answer me why on earth this IP have to replace the sources with another sources. If I already was warned the situation would be different now. As I said above we disagreed about his controversial number figures not about why the refugees fled to Jordan.Uishaki (talk) 14:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Again, you're failing to address the reason for this block, which is a violation of a topic ban. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:53, 30 December 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.

You're not allowed to edit articles related to the Arab-Israeli dispute. Full stop. End of discussion. No matter how wrong you think somebody else's edit is. That's what a topic ban means. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Chile–Palestine relations, Uishaki!

Wikipedia editor Legacypac just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Uishaki

To reply, leave a comment on Legacypac's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

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:

Hello, my block should have been expired since one week, but JamesBWatson extended it because I tried to evaid block through an IP adress. I promise to not breach the ARBPIA topic ban one more time and regret about the mistake I had made.Uishaki (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

These kinds of blocks cannot be reviewed with this template; please read this this guide. Kuru (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2015 (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.

Hello, JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) my ARBPIA block came to an end on 13 January but extending the block one month is too much. I regret so much and feel sorry about it.--Uishaki (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am willing to read anything you may have to say, and consider whether there is a case for shortening the block. However, you will have some serious persuading to do, because the way I see it is as follows. You tried to evade the block; you have a history of blocks for the same reason; you have previously evaded at least one block, perhaps more. All in all, all that makes you look like the kind of editor who accepts an occasional short block as the necessary cost of ignoring policy. My experience is that such editors just carry on in the same way, without ever changing, unless the message is conveyed to them that it is no longer going to be just a matter of being blocked for a few days, or at the most a couple of weeks at a time, and further infractions will lead to substantial blocks. If I now shorten the block, it may well convey to you the message "There you are! Just as you thought! You really can get away with ignoring your topic ban as often as you like, as long as you are prepared to accept a short block every now and then!" You are welcome to try to persuade me otherwise, but, as I have already said, you will have some serious persuading to do. And don't forget to explain why you tried to evade the block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson (talk · contribs), I can understand why I was blocked for two weeks but extending the block until 13 February is completely illogical. I have not history of evading block only one time in June 2014.--Uishaki (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked on 30 December 2014. You tried to evade your block on 31 December 2014. Since you have decided not to take up my offer of considering anything you might like to say in favour of reducing the length of your block, I need waste no more of my time on this case. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kuru (talk · contribs), Could you pleace intervene and talk to JamesBWatson because he doesn't want to remove the block until 13 February. I regret about what happened and promise that I would respect the ARBPIA topic ban.--Uishaki (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JamesB. This the second time you've attempted to evade a block by editing logged out (well, the second time you've been caught) and you've given no indication that you see any problem with your edits, that you understand the reasons for the block, or that you won't just carry on regardless if the block is lifted. In fact, your history suggests that that is exactly what you'll do. And if you do, you can expect a sanction at the higher end of the scale. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, this block, including the extension, are simply not subject to review by individual administrators. You will need to carefully review the link I gave you. Kuru (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UISHAKI, from Portugal,

this player may now be naturalized and an international for Palestine, but he was an ARGENTINE FOOTBALLER until the age of...let's say...28. I have reinstated the pertinent categories, the others you removed I think are OK, because they are not sourced.

Thank you. --84.90.219.128 (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am Chuong. I talk you will see for 2016 AFC U-23 Championship qualification that here! Can you help me! Thanks! Boyconga278 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You watching it for eight template, it is vandalism:

• Template:2016 AFC U-23 Championship qualification Group C
• Template:2016 AFC U-23 Championship qualification Group D
• Template:2016 AFC U-23 Championship qualification Group F
• Template:2016 AFC U-23 Championship qualification Group G
• Template:2016 AFC U-23 Championship qualification Group H
• Template:2016 AFC U-23 Championship qualification Group I
• Template:2016 AFC U-23 Championship qualification Group J
• Template:2016 AFC U-23 Championship qualification (2nd place)

Thanks! Boyconga278 (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • * * مرحبا ساتكلم معك بالعربية

انا من العراق ،، يونس محمود لعب مباراتين يوم السبت و اليوم ابضا ضد منتخب جمهورية الكونغو الديمقراطية ضمن ايام الفيفا للمباريات الودية ابضا اصبحت عدد مبارياته الدولية بعد هاتين المباراتين 139 مباراة ارجوا ان تساعدني في تصحيح المعلومة الموجودة بالصفحة الانجليزية لكي تصل المعلومات الصحيحة لجميع الناس وبخاصة ان موقع الويكي الانجليزي اصبح مصدرا للعديد من الصحفيين الرياضيين،، اسف عالاطالة و ارجوا ان ترحب بمبادرتي ،، تقبل تحياتي — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdistantolive (talk • contribs) 22:06, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • * مرحبا انا من العراق وبخصوص التغيرات الحاصلة بمقالة يونس محمود وهو لاعب عراقي المهم يوم امس لعب يونس محمود اول مباراة له في كاس الاتحاد الاسيوي لصالح نادي اربيل العراقي ضد نادي اهل التركمانستاني وقد سجل يونس محمود هدفين في مباراة يوم امس وتقدر ان تتاكد من اليوتيوب لكي تشاهد الاهداف و من موقع الاتحاد الاسيوي ،، لهذا يجب ذكر معلومة ان يونس محمود لعب مباراة واحدة و سجل هدفين ،، لهذا وجب التذكير و التنبيه ،،، تقبل خالص تحياتي و تقديري

HI

• http://www.the-afc.com/afcasfeeds?fixtureid=9041&stageid=353&tMode=H&view=ajax&show=matchsummary

and

• http://www.the-afc.com/afcasfeeds?fixtureid=9038&stageid=353&tMode=H&view=ajax&show=matchsummary

he was played 2 match Kurdistantolive (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—2011 Bangladesh national football team results —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Worldbruce (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Basketball at the 2011 GCC Games 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/Basketball at the 2011 GCC Games 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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Palestine NFT results has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:West Asian Football Federation Women's Championship requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Second Round Group A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello many greetings,

Requesting your proactive contribution and support in updating Draft:Aurats (word) in relation to the languages you know well.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Namibian football referees requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:AFC Challenge Cup-winning countries has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]