User talk:Arab Cowboy

Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal.

Talk:Asmahan

I understand what you're saying, but it's part of the conversation. You're cherry picking out parts of the conversation when it's not your place to do so. Per WP:TPOC, "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." Just leave it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Create a user page

User:Arab Cowboy it would be nice if u create a User page so that when signing you wouldn't have a redlink.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I didn't know why I had a red link. Btw, thanks for your help! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asmahan#Asmahan_and_her_debut

Could u work on Asmahan#Asmahan_and_her_debut before the marriage section, filling all citation needed tags and expanding?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diaa, I am refraining from editing the article for 24 hours as agreed, allowing SD freedom to edit Asmahan's early life section through her exit from Swaida. I shall start my editing as of 13:00 GMT 6 July for 24 hours, during which time, I would appreciate no editing by others. I shall edit/create a section to discuss Asmahan's immigration to and life in Egypt, marriages, and death. Btw, is there any reason why the section about her voice characteristics was removed by Annyong? Regards, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that as soon as I was made aware of it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice characteristics section

Please if u have references to this section provide them and add them in your time.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green light

You have the green light to edit the article except the things discussed before like the lead. Please don't remove anything from what the other user has added. You may only add new info and expand stuff. You can also fix grammar and copyedit the Early life section according to your sources. I'll monitor the page and add {{Clarify}} and {{fact}} when I see stuff missing. Please reference all the unreferenced stuff. Otherwise there is no proof that she even was a singer. We will discuss tomorrow at 13:30 GMT any disputes.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still there?

Are you still there Arab Cowboy?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. Will work on the article until tomorrow at 13:30 GMT. Thanks, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolof359

Hello. Surpreme Deliciousness posted a warning on the Golan Heights talk page warning people about me and you saying we are the same. He also put the warning on my page but I deleted it. I thought you should know he was bad mouthing you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolof359 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let him talk... who's listening anyway?! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asmahan Series

Dear Arab Cowboy, you have expanded the Asmahan article to a great extent with valuable info. It would be even better if u write a little about the TV show. I found many sources, in arabic though:--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 05:22, 13 July 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

What exactly is the violation for which I have been blocked? I have not made any disruptive editing, and especially none of the sort to any articles. I have also not engaged in any vandalism, as Tan has changed the accusation to. Tan seems to have blocked me because he did not like that I supported the complaint of Nefer Tweety. He wanted to shut me up so as to not respond to comments coming in by other editors. I ask for my block to be removed and an investigation into abuse of authority by administrator, Tan.

Decline reason:

You were engaged in a tedious argument over matters irrelevant to the matter. It is not a personal attack to call another user a "sockpuppet". And had Tanthalas not blocked you, I would have -- & I am an Admin who is otherwise completely uninterested in this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 07:05, 13 July 2009 (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.

Note to reviewing admin - see ANI thread here, and my pre-block warning here, which was unheeded. Tan | 39 05:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disruptive editing of which I am accused, as I read it now, has to do with Wikipedia articles, not an incidents' reporting page. I still do not see where I could have been disruptive, and none of my edits can be construed as Wikipedia:Vandalism as my accusation was later changed to by Tan. I still see this as a clear abuse of administrator authority by Tan. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you post the diff where I changed anything? Tan | 39 06:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, the link to the violation went to this page: Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, then when I clicked it again, a few minutes later, it went to this page: Wikipedia:Vandalism. Somehow, you assume that "AC, knock off the disruption here. This constitutes an only warning." is intelligible. It may be so in some colloquial Arizona dialect, but it is not formal English writing and is not understable to non-native English speakers who have only been formally educated in English. Before I had the chance to ask you what you meant, you had already blocked me! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and what in the world does "I hear the voice of the duck, calling "Plaxico!" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)" mean??? Who was the disruptive side here? Suit yourselves, people. You seem to value no fair chance for others to express themselves, and it all seems like a gang! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

i was not involved in any "tedious argument over matters irrelevant to the matter" it was admin Tan who digressed the whole matter (and the complaint of another user) to "congress and the constitution". it was also the original complainer, NT, who posted the "freedom of expression" statement, not me. i was trying my best to stir the conversation back to the issue at hand, the commplaint. Tan's so-called warning "AC, knock off the disruption here. This constitutes an only warning" was far from being uderstandable and was read by me after i had already posted another response. Tan blocked me before i had the chance to ask him to clarify that "warning" statement or how my editing was "disruptive". the whole matter took only seconds in my view. i did not commit any violation by means of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing or Wikipedia:Vandalism as Tan has alleged, and if you see otherwise, please explain to me how my postings fit into any of these categories. I am asking for a thorough investigation of abuse of authority by admin Tan.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=i was not involved in any "tedious argument over matters irrelevant to the matter" it was admin Tan who digressed the whole matter (and the complaint of another user) to "congress and the constitution".  it was also the original complainer, NT, who posted the "freedom of expression" statement, not me.  i was trying my best to stir the conversation back to the issue at hand, the commplaint.  Tan's so-called warning "AC, knock off the disruption here. This constitutes an only warning" was far from being uderstandable and was read by me after i had already posted another response.  Tan blocked me before i had the chance to ask him to clarify that "warning" statement or how my editing was "disruptive".  the whole matter took only seconds in my view.  '''i did not commit any violation by means of [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] or [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]] as Tan has alleged, and if you see otherwise, please explain to me how my postings fit into any of these categories'''.  I am asking for a thorough investigation of abuse of authority by admin Tan. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=i was not involved in any "tedious argument over matters irrelevant to the matter" it was admin Tan who digressed the whole matter (and the complaint of another user) to "congress and the constitution".  it was also the original complainer, NT, who posted the "freedom of expression" statement, not me.  i was trying my best to stir the conversation back to the issue at hand, the commplaint.  Tan's so-called warning "AC, knock off the disruption here. This constitutes an only warning" was far from being uderstandable and was read by me after i had already posted another response.  Tan blocked me before i had the chance to ask him to clarify that "warning" statement or how my editing was "disruptive".  the whole matter took only seconds in my view.  '''i did not commit any violation by means of [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] or [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]] as Tan has alleged, and if you see otherwise, please explain to me how my postings fit into any of these categories'''.  I am asking for a thorough investigation of abuse of authority by admin Tan. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=i was not involved in any "tedious argument over matters irrelevant to the matter" it was admin Tan who digressed the whole matter (and the complaint of another user) to "congress and the constitution".  it was also the original complainer, NT, who posted the "freedom of expression" statement, not me.  i was trying my best to stir the conversation back to the issue at hand, the commplaint.  Tan's so-called warning "AC, knock off the disruption here. This constitutes an only warning" was far from being uderstandable and was read by me after i had already posted another response.  Tan blocked me before i had the chance to ask him to clarify that "warning" statement or how my editing was "disruptive".  the whole matter took only seconds in my view.  '''i did not commit any violation by means of [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing]] or [[Wikipedia:Vandalism]] as Tan has alleged, and if you see otherwise, please explain to me how my postings fit into any of these categories'''.  I am asking for a thorough investigation of abuse of authority by admin Tan. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

.

Any Help Needed

I saw what happened after I have posted a complaint here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_false_Accusations_and_Insults_by_User_Supreme_Deliciousness_.28SD.29 To me, this is becoming funny! I am tired of being called your sockpuppet everytime. Anyway, I have decided to take llywrch's advice: "It is not a personal attack to call another user a "sockpuppet" ". I'll be cool everytime I am called so :) I am not sure if you have the same stance, thats' why I would like to ask you if I can provide any help. --Nefer Tweety (talk) 10:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not OK for you to be called a sockpuppet. If you could, please contact Graeme Bartlett and Diaa abdelmoneim and let them know of this situation. Ask Graeme if he can review this matter and provide help. Thanks, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already did on the noticeboard. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Diaa, and NT, the help of both of you is appreciated. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]