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]

Supreme Deliciousness, please add references to her Syrian songs or why she would be considered a Syrian singer so that Music of Syria would be considered a fact in the template. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But she was a Syrian women from Syria that sang songs, so of course she was a Syrian singer.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please reply here so I don't go back and forth. I'm not contesting that she's Syrian, however in the infobox it say in Genre "Syrian". Unless this is referenced somewhere it should be removed. Not her ethnicity is contested but the fact that she sang Syrian songs. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if she sang any Syrian songs. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:23, 5 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]

Unblock

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]

Why is my account still blocked even though the 72 hours have passed?

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

Autoblock #1515236 lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Q ^{T C} 06:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

I think in this blocking case Tan has overreacted on a COI situation. He made a block because of a conversation he was involved with. An uninvolved admin should have been requested. This is so that a clear head can be applied to the situation, rather than a hot angry one. In any case bringing up issues on WP:AN/I is a way to bring on the admins and is a focus for drama. You may also be interested in reading Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals and Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade. The reference to ducks is explained at Duck test. The place you should have talked about SD's (possibly false) allegation is at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Graeme. Your comments are well taken. Two things I do not understand, though: 1. what is a COI situation? and 2. what do you mean by "bringing up issues on WP:AN/I is a way to bring on the admins and is a focus for drama"? I see that Tan has not afforded me due process in issuing a warning, assuming that he was entitled to do so, according to [warning procedure]. Not only was he involved and the primary antagonizer in this incident (he was the one who digressed the complaint conversation to "congress and the constituion", and he and others spoke in language that was unintelligible and only seemed derogatory to me and the original complainer). A couple of users have agreed below that to continue to label users as sockpuppets is insulting and undermines their inputs to articles and conversations, especially that Checkuser has shown no evidence of sockpuppetry. Please advise me on how to report this apparent violation and make a formal complaint of abuse of admin authority. Thanks, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your best option at this point is to wait out the block, as other admins have declined the unblock request. If you keep asking for reviews of the block (which is an option open to you) you will gain more and more attention. You already know that SD is you opponent in the edit wars, so he may use uncivil tactics to fight back. Just ignore this accusation at this point. My point about WP:AN/I is that the incident noticeboard is supposed to be for serious incidents that need an administrator intervention. By reporting an insulting statement, that is not of much seriousness, you have attracted attention of people who are used to using things like blocks. All that was probably needed was a warning from an independent person on the accuser. The Sock Puppet investigators do not like to waste their time on clearing people of accusation unless it looks likely, and that some serious problem occurred because of it, like vandalism, bypass 3rr rule, vote stacking etc. For example, a SPI case was raised against me on the meta? for a cross project case involving article creation. It was rejected do to no negative consequences. And it was baseless anyway! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A COI situation is a conflict of interested. An admin should not take administrative action in an area that they are involved in a dispute, but should ask an uninvolved person instead. The example is if a vandal damages the admin's user page, they should as at the WP:AIV for another administrator to take action to block. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I misread the history logs of your discussion page; you had only once removed the notice that your appeal to be unblocked was declined. While that is never something to remove from your Talk page, the fact you restored it soon afterwards shows you understood it should not be removed. Hence I apologize for any inconvenience this caused. However, I still caution you to moderate your behavior: your response to the allegation that you were a "sockpuppet" was inappropriate. Discuss the facts, not the political theory of free speech. -- llywrch (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch, you still misunderstand the facts and you seem to react too hastily. As I explained earlier, it WAS NOT I who brought up "free speech" in that thread. It was the original complainer, NT, who did and which Tan and Baseball Bugs picked on and took it to a "Congress and the Constitution" discussion. I tried repeatedly to stear the dialogue back to the "complaint" at hand, but only got in return teasing, and what seemed to be "insider jokes" about "ducks" and "plaxico" which I had no idea what they were. I could not see how people, even admins, would respond to a legitimate complaint by talking about ducks and quacks and such! And, finally for Tan to post an ambiguous statement about disruption, without even explaining that "disruption" was a coined term that had its own page on Wikipedia, was also unprofessional. Warnings are usually posted on the concerned user's Talk page, in formal English language, and with appropriate links to the respective violation pages. A chance is given to the warned party to understand the violation. None of that was done. He blocked me two minutes later before I had a chance to ask him to explain what his "warning" comment all meant. I had not even begun to comprehend it yet. As for the "sockpuppet" term, I do find it derogatory, even if NT doesn't mind it now. No one should be termed a puppet of any kind, especially when they have not done anything to deserve it. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on any of the other issues: calling someone else a sockpuppet is exactly like calling someone else a vandal; unless you know it to be true and can demonstrate it to be so, it is a personal attack that has no place on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jpgordon, I am glad that someone else sees this the same way, that it is disrespectful to call someone a sockpuppet without being able to demonstrate it. I request that you please review this case and adjudicate my unblock request above. Thanks, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Without stating an opinion regarding any other issues or arguments on this page, I would have to agree with jpgordon in that the use of the term "sockpuppet" can be indeed viewed as a personal attack, especially in regards to the context in which the accusation is made and the way the accuser handles the situation. Mentioning that you have concerns someone may be a sockpuppet on one or two pages may be OK; however if an editor keeps repeatedly bringing this belief up on various talk pages (and not on SPI -- where it belongs) then it moves into the realm of personal attacks because it can damage others perceptions of a user's credibility. --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nsaum75. --03:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Investigation Conclusions

Unrelated
- Arab Cowboy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Nefer Tweety (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 09:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Asmahan again

Hi. Could you avoid changing your comments too much on the talk page there? Edits like this make it harder to keep up with the latest conversation, as it requires re-reading all the previous comments every time. And if someone quotes you, that quotation may be stale. In general it's best for you to just leave a new note at the bottom. WP:TPG#Own comments talks about doing this. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annyong: I avoid changing my comments AFTER anyone replies to them, which is in compliance with the recommendation in WP:TPG#Own comments. No one has replied yet to the comment in reference. I have also been labelling my comments as "Work in progress" because I am doing research and writing at the same time. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading pictures

I am finding some difficulty uploading few pictures. A lot of things here seem confusing to me. I am a new user and I am still not acquainted with few things here. Can you kindly help me out? Thanks in advance --Nefer Tweety (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

certainly, just let me know what you would like to upload and i will do my best. regards, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. This is my email address ----. Please email me. --Nefer Tweety (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Can't thank you enough. --Nefer Tweety (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Diaa

Diaa:

I brought this conversation here because it's hard to conduct a sane one with all the rude interjections from two specific editors.

I regeret that our conversation yesterday took an abrupt turn. However, your accusation, " I find what AC did with changing everything without even respecting my input shows much disrespect to my instructions," was unexpected and I took it seriously. I posted a clear defense of my position in response, and all you did was invoke that WP:STICK response. I reiterate here the sequence of events. AFTER the two 24-hour free-edit periods had elapsed, you allowed, or SD snuck by you, at lease 4 edits, when I had understood it to be only you editing the article during that time, and I refrained from touching it. I posted all my comments to your and SD's edits on the article's Talk page and then, when you ignored them, on your own Talk page, which you also ignored, only to find you giving an instruction to SD to "improve the article". I thought that maybe I had missed a "free edit" instruction since you were approving his editing of the article and instructing further edits. So, if there was any fault in what happened, it was SD's sneak edits, your missing them, your ignoring my comments, and finally, your unqualified "improve the article" instruction.

I therefore do not accept blame for the break-down in communication, and I ask that you retract, if not apologize for, your accusation on the Talk page. If the WP:STICK response is all that you are willing to offer, then I will have to accept the stoppage of your mediation. In all cases, I thank you for your efforts so far.

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 08:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AC I instructed the two of you not to edit freely, the two of you ignored my instructions, the two of you were at fault, I didn't see those edits after the 24 hour edit time, I won't retract anything or apologize for it, I told you to add reffs you added more changed the lead and so on, I wanted to clean the article of all unreffed stuff and told you therefore to add reffs, you should have complained about SDs edits before doing all this.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diaa, this is truly unbelievable! I DID complain to you about SD's edits REPEATEDLY before touching the article (from 11 July when I finished my 24-hour period to 25 July when I started editing again). For two weeks, I made no edits to the article hoping you'd see my comments and intervene to stop SD's abuses. You ignored all my complaints and issued an "improve the article" instruction, and it was ONLY AFTER that instruction that I edited the article again. Your instruction was, after my request for clarification, "I'm referring to Asmahan and Farid for him to improve, which both clearly need reff improvements and expansions." Below are my complaints that I had been chasing you around with on both the article's and your Talk pages. Which parts of the paragraphs below did you not see as a complaint of SD's edits?

"Diaa, I am not sure why this private discussion is going on here when it is supposed to be on the article's Talk page. I am not going to spend too much time trying to interpret SD's gibberish writing style. The article as it stands now is not in accordance with the discussions on the Talk page. There's still reference to "homeland", which I will remove or seriously challenge in the article. Also, the first statement in the lead now contains redundant reference to Syrian roots. I'll be busy with other matters for a couple of days. I will leave it in your hands to abide by the discussions in the Talk page - you seem to have overlooked a couple of paragraphs I addressed to you there. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Was dealt with...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diaa, I have just returned and I am surprised by all the unjustified edits that have taken place that seem contrary to the "agreed text" on the Talk page, especially in the lead. You seem to have given in to almost all of SD's unrealistic demands, with "done, done, done...". I have not been able to fill-in my suggestions due my absence, why create a section for Annyong and not Nefer Tweety, the fourth party to the discussion? I am prepared to start editing the article, but I do not want to start another edit war. I had placed a few questions for you on the Talk page which you seem to have overlooked! Would you like to start another round of discussion or shall I go ahead and edit the article? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't create one for Annyong, he created it himself. I don't see why one can't add a section by himself. The lead was improved to be Syrian-Egyptian which she was.

Below are a few paragraphs from the Talk page that you may have missed: "Diaa, thanks for your work on the article. For the purpose of academic integrity, we cannot attribute the "Asmahan’s immigration to Egypt as a child of five years old was undisputedly the most important turning point in her life, for without it, she would have had no musical career and Arab music would have missed out on her talent entirely." statement to Sherifa Zuhur. I had composed this introductory statement to the paragraph, and the facts in the paragraph, clearly and without exception, converge back to it. I am not in favor of starting paragraphs with a plunge into a series of facts with no common thought. I see that many of the sections in the article now need similar introductory statements. Just an element of style. Cheers, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

undisputedly the most important turning point she was five years old, what life?? A statement like that shouldn't be in the article as it's unencyclopedic and a certain point of view.

"Diaa, are we going to keep the reference to Asmahan's "homeland," be it Syrian or Egyptian? I thought we had agreed to refrain from using this word. If so, I will have to expand on this issue. Also, I find the Identity section is a bit strange. I am not sure that it is necessary; I do not see other biographies having a similar section. However, if you would like to keep it, I will have a lot to say there too. We also need to bring the Voice Characteristics section back; it just needs a lot of work. I can work on it gradually cause my time is limited.

This was dealt with.

"I thought my question was addressed to Diaa, not SD. SD has stated the above gibberish over and over again. I am not interested in replying to it unless Diaa states that "homeland" is "on the table". --Arab Cowboy (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeland was removed...

"Diaa, I will not object to your choice of a Syrian-Egyptian label, on the grounds of citizenship only, and not chosen identity. The rest of that sentence will have to be omitted. On these grounds, reference to her mother will have to come later in the body of the article. On the basis of chosen or actual identity, my originally proposed sentence should stand. Just a correction, sources have shown that she did not live her early life in Swaida and her father was not the governer of Swaida. See Zuhur, p. 36. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're referring to now...

"I am not sure what is unclear abour Zuhur's statement: "She did not actually spend much time in the Jabal itself and probably remembered visits in the early 1920s." This clearly means that not only did she not live there, but she did not even spend much time there at all! She only went there for "visits". Yes, they had a house in Swaida, that 'Alia stated was not her house, but her husband's, as they did in Lebanon and Turkey, where they actually lived in the early years of Asmahan's life. P. 38: "Alia never felt comfortable in the Jabal." P. 39: "...the Jabal, which was not her home, but her husband's." How is this not clear? Or, are we reinventing the wheel and the English language? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC), etc..."

What do u want to be changed?

"Sorry for cluttering your Talk page; please feel free to "clean-up" after responding to the above on Asmahan's talk page. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)"

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asmahan concerns

Marhaba AC, please see the article now and tell me what other concerns you may have. I tried to address most of them, albeit not exactly the way you wanted, but within the confines of Wiki guidelines and personal compromise. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salam Ameer.... you are doing a great job. Thank you. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cooperation ;) --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marhaba Arab Cowboy. Unfortunately, I don't think I will be able to help with Farid, at least not yet. I am currently trying to bring Gamal Abdel Nasser to FA status per WP Egypt Collaboration. If no one will provide mediation for you guys at that article, please just try to keep it civil. Remember, what I did in Asmahan was actually not the standard in wiki policy (protecting an article and editing it myself). Believe me other admins would probably block both of you guys, which I don't feel is necessary. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your effort, Ameer. i think your method was very effective in thwarting sneaky edits. can you hold on a couple of hours more to only fix the lead in Farid? we just need it to mirror that in Asmahan. I can write a draft real quick. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Draft already written in artcle, Farid al-Atrash. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok AC. I read it and don't see a problem with it. If SD decides it's problematic in any way we'll just discuss it on the talk page, but wallah I don't want to get deep into that article yet. I'll just try stick with the lead. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, just the lead. Btw, where in the US are you? Thank you ;-) --Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central Florida. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texas here ;-) --Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Supreme, as long as adopted country is backed by the source then there's no problem with it. Nothing controversial. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism

check this: "If the external work is under standard copyright, then duplicating its text with little, or no, alteration into a Wikipedia article is usually a copyright violation" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know

That you couldnt have told me yourself that I was not writing or talking on your "talk" page...lol haram. Lebanese bebe (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is haram? You seem to be too aggressive. You made a a charge of harrassment on the basis of what exactly? Calm down a bit and please read the Talk pages. We had spent weeks working on those statemenets with the help of Administrators, and now you come and change them in a few seconds? Here's what the Adminstrator has said: "SD, avoid original research. Even the leap from "Sharif's parents were Lebanese", to "Sharif is of Lebanese descent" is going too far in an article about a living person." There are rules for an encyclopedia that are very different from the tribal thought process that you are pushing. Everything has to be officially documented with WP:RS. You quoted the Cairo Times, which I do not know, and you did so from an unreliable source. You need to quote the actual source with date and issue number to start with. The articles already mention Lebanese origins, but not in the lead. If you keep pushing your tribal way, I am going to involve Adminstrators again. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said: tribal thought process that you may be used to in the Middle East. Yes, this is a leap

Me...Tribal thought process in the Middle East. Sweet heart I do not have a tribal thought process and you really need to stop being so primitive and offensive. Well now I can clearly make a charge of harassment, teling me that I have a tribal thought process that I am used to in the Middle East LMAO. I live in the States sweetheart. My tribal way? Do I need to involve the administrators?? Because now it is obvious ur harassing me. Lebanese bebe (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest... and btw, do not call me sweetheart. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delay in responses

Marhaba AC, I don't think I'll be able to articulate responses to the concerns brought up by you and SD on the Asmahan talk page just yet (it's getting murkier and murkier...). I'm leaving Wiki for a three-day vacation (to Miami!) and will respond when I get back. If I have access to a computer I'll get on wiki briefly. Anyway, I suggest that both of you edit other articles until then when we could work something out—inshallah. I'm giving SD the same message. Cheers, --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks, Ameer. Hope you have a great vacation. You should stop by here sometime :-) --Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got a response at my talk page

Hi Arab Cowboy. Please have a look at my talk page. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Cactus

That's fine. I am too busy with other matters anyway. The whole article matched the sources to the same extent. You can be selective all you want! Your blanking of only section of the article was double standards. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramadan mubarak akhi

May this Ramadan and the next be full of blessings, --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ameer. You seem to be a very nice guy. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Ameer, please take a look at the Asmahan Talk page. I thought we had agreed that I was going to be given until the weekend to work on possible CVs in the Role in WWII section. You personally agreed to that, "Thanks, Ameer. Yes, you've done more good than bad. I will rewrite my sections in the weekend to word more differently than the source. I am busy till the weekend, so no pressing me on this till then. Salam, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks and no problem AC. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)." Unfortunately, before the weekend, SD went around making his trademark nagging complaints to another admin, CactusWriter, and that admin protected that specific section from further editing for CV. When I objected and stated that the whole article was written in a similar fashion, and I labelled the whole article (except for the lead) as such... very close to the sources, Cactus would not check the remainder of the artcile and finally blocked me. Cactus has then proceeded to delete the whole article, which was the same action that I had taken and which he described as desruptive and for which he blocked me, and restore the 11 July version of the article. Cactus has stated on the Talk page of the article that plagiarism started with your (Ameer's) own edit on 11 July. I do not have time to deal with WP in this ridiculous fashion... We have a very childish editor, SD, who would not stop at any lows to get his agenda through, and admins who do not wish to spend the time to review those childish complaints before they take action. Cactus blocked for taking an action (tagging the article as CV, as per his own criteria) that he personally later took. I also suspect that Cactus does not understand the definition of plagiarism. According to WP, 'Whether it is the result of deliberate deception, or improper attribution, duplicating the work of others without credit can bring both author and publisher into disrepute.' According to MW, "transitive verb: 1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own; 2) use (another's production) without crediting the source.' Clearly, the key is to credit the information, etc., to its respective sources, whether quoted or paraphrased. I do notunderstand his objections and his reasoning for wasting all of our collective efforts for more than a month. All the sentences in the Role in WWII section that Cactus judged as plagiarized were attributed to their reespective sources, not only the full sentences, but even as little as words copied from the sources. So, no credit was stolen from the sources and I do not see where plagirism could have been alleged. I am sending you this message as a shot in the dark, but I do not have too much hope that admins will diligently do the work that they volunteered to do. Take care. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know you were blocked, because you removed the notice. What were you blocked for? Looks like edit warring. Tan | 39 14:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained in the paragraph above, I was blocked for insisting on tagging the whole article as CV, not just the one section that did not suit SD's agenda. The whole article was written in the same way, so my position was either to tag it all or leave it all. Cactus did not pay attention to my request to apply the same standards to the whole article, then he blocked me without any warning, then he reverted the article to 11 July (the date he assumed CV began). So, what was the purpose of the block? Just to have freedom for he and SD to edit the article without contest? In addition, I had been given until AFTER the weekend to address any CV in that one section. Before the weekend, Cactus had already tagged that section in response to SD's repeated nagging. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for your block

Arab Cowboy, from your messages above, it appears you have misunderstood the reason you were blocked. You received a block for persistent edit warring. The Asmahan article was only one place where this occurred. When I received a complaint about your editing behavior, a check of your contributions that day revealed a quick series of contentious blanket reversions, including antagonizing "vandalism" labels directed at an editor [1], [2], [3], and even a mislabeled copyright violation [4]. There was also the reversion,reversion, reversion, reversion at Asmahan. All these reversions occurred within a few hours. A check of your block log revealed you were blocked twice only last month [5], [6] for edit warring and disruptive editing. My block to prevent your continued disruption was justified per edit warring policy. You had been advised about this behavior previously. It was not new to you and you understood it. I suggest you try to understand that continuing in the same manner is unacceptable and disruptive.

I do understand that you have been in a continual "battle" with user SD. I know the problem has not been one-sided and I feel both of you both have been equally culpable. When I first arrived at Talk:Asmahan in response to a Copyright Violation Report, it took me only a minute to realize there was an extreme antagonism between the two of you. The next day, when SD asked me if was okay to delete information from Al-Atrash, I felt it necessary to warn SD about edit warring and improper POV-pushing. I also said then that I thought both of you were on the verge of topic bans. I still believe that. My suggestion is to avoid one another and do not alter each other's edits, but rather have a neutral third editor make changes for you.

As far as the copyright violations and the determination of plagiarism, that is an entirely different matter, but I will be happy to explain that to you. If you have questions, feel free to ask. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus, thanks for the explanations above. Why didn't you block SD for the same period since, as you say, you knew that we were equally cuplable and were reverting each other's edits? You blocked only myself because you had already complied with SD's request to blank my "Role in WWII" section while I blanked the rest of the article, which you had not taken the time to personally review, in spite of my repeated requests. Admin Al Ameer son had given my till that weekend to address any possible CVs in that section. You blanked that section, in compliance with SD's request, before the grace period granted by Al Ameer son, which was not acceptable. You and SD, acting in concert even though he was equally culpable, were pushing my patience beyond any reasonable limits. As I said, you were not fair or even handed by any means, and your statement "both of you both have been equally culpable" proves this point. As for the your determinations of plagiarism, I have already detailed my opinions above; all text was credited to its respective sources, so I do not see where plagiarism could have occurred. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arab Cowboy, I'll try to answer your concerns point by point. I warned SD instead of blocking, stating I came close to blocking you as well, but I took into account you fell one edit short of 3RR, used the discussion page and finally sought advice.. Its a judgment call. I felt you were the primary contributor and my concern was to deter any continued edit warring.

The World War II section was templated because that was the specific section which was in the initial report filed at Copyright Problems on August 10. The report came due for processing on August 18. As an administrator who processes the due CV reports, I read it and began to investigate.

I was unaware of any prior arrangement between you and Al Ameer son. I have now found that Talk:Asmahan remark. (Obscured in the huge volume of arguing which made even Al Ameer son "a little dizzy"). Oddly enough, even though Al Ameer son said to fix the plagiarism and you agreed to fix the plagiarism, your first comment to me was to question that there was any copyright violation at all. If, instead, you had simply told me that you had already agreed to revise it, my response would have been, "Great. Thanks." -- as is my common response in the similar cases I deal with each week.

Now on to the copyright violation issue: Your statements from above indicate a misreading of the policy. Your quote is a dictionary definition, not the WP policy. Please read the entire page, especially the section Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Attributing text copied from other sources. That you attributed the source with inline citations is great. Unfortunately, it doesn't relieve the text of copyright infringement. Limited amount of copyrighted text only can be used if placed inside quotation marks and attributed. I think you understand that "limited amount" typically means only a phrase or sentence, and that the exact wording of the source must be maintained. Anything else must be summarized in original language. But how original must the language be to avoid violating another author's copyright? Well, that is the tricky question which trips up most people. Simply altering sentence structure or using synonyms will not relieve text of plagiarism. A finding of plagiarism doesn't even require exact wording, but takes into account the structure, format and content of the presentation of an idea -- as well as the quantity of similarities. Please read WP:Close paraphrasing for more explanation. The general advice is: don't try too much paraphrasing. Instead read the sources, understand the material, then put the sources away while writing a summary. Afterward, recheck the sources to make certain the meaning remains the same. I hope this cleared up a few things for you. Let me know if you have further questions. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus, I demand that you block SD for the same duration for the following reasons:

You have stated on more than one occasion that SD was EQUALLY culpable.
SD was, in fact, the instigator of the edit wars, as has always been the case. His agenda (going to many articles and inserting "Syrian" to the background of prominent figures and otherwise) is very antagonizing to other editors.
SD was well aware of the "until the weekend" grace period that had been granted to me by admin Al Ameer son to address any possible CVs in the "Role in WWII" section of Asmahan. Yet, deceptively, he brought you into this matter before that grace period was over and pushed you to blank that section without informing you of the existing grace period. This was the primary reason of the ensuing edit war. You blanked that one section and left the rest of the article that which had been written in the same manner and therefore also deserved to be blanked, which you later did but after ignoring my repeated requests to this effect on the article's and your own Talk pages and then blocking only me. This was completely biased on your part.
The edit warring (3RR) rule is not strict on the actual revert count. In fact, it states, "Note that any administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached." Clearly, SD was engaged in edit warring. I have not disputed my own action in this regard, but it was your duty as administrator to block both editors or neither one, as another admin had done on a previous instance that SD had also instigated.

Your action, therefore, was biased and misinformed and I ask you to correct it.

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording was "have been equally culpable" (Past tense). It appears SD is not currently edit warring. If problems arise in the future, please use WP:DR and WP:DRR or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus, I do not know if English is your native language (it is not mine), but "have been" is a present perfect tense, which describes the present state of the subject. You also state to SD, in the present tense, "I find you equally culpable because of antagonizing POV-pushing edits. Edits like this, this, this, this, this, to just name a few, suggest you may have an an agenda. Persisting in constant reversions suggests intractability and antagonizing behavior. I haven't determined whether you are actually anti-Egyptian or just determined to add the word Syrian into every article whether its appropriate, but I do note that you seem to be in edit wars on most every article in which you are involved. "

SD continues to edit war, and he has been the instigator of all the edit wars. Clearly he was engaged in edit warring at the time that you blocked me alone, and not both of us. I have not counted the exact number of reverts, but their sheer count is irrelevant according to WP policy. He has gone around during the period of the block and inserted his "Syrian" agenda into all the articles in dispute. For all 4 reasons I listed above, I ask you again to block him for the same period that you blocked me. Doing otherwise will preciptate your bias and will cause the edit war to continue. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not going to happen -- blocks aren't made for punishment or retaliation. If you have a problem, you are free to file a report at WP:ANEW. Other administrators have already advised you about this today. You chose to delete their messages. I suggest you listen to them. I also strongly suggest that you stop focusing on other editors and concentrate more on making positive productive contributions. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

Ive filed request for Arbitration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Asmahan --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, hmwith☮ 18:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hmwith and welcome to this debacle. What is the main question of the arbitration? What is the problem that we are trying to solve? What is the evidence supposed to support? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is the behavior of the involved parties in the Asmahan article content dispute. The main questions are:

A) What, if anything, have users done that violates the rules and practices of Wikipedia?

B) What must ArbCom do to prevent further disruption in the area?

I hope this has clarified things a bit. Let me know if you have any further confusion. Thanks, hmwith☮ 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmwith, thank you for the explanation. If you don't mind, this matter will need to be postponed by a couple of weeks as (a) today is the first day of Eid ul Fitr, a religious holiday, and (b) I am traveling half way around the world. I will be able to attend to this matter on my return home. Please let me know if this is agreeable to you. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By what date will you be available? hmwith☮ 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've discussed this with other editors active in the case, as well as other clerks and arbs, and the case will resume normally. No decisions will be made until your return. Thanks, hmwith☮ 00:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Aleya Al Menzer and her Children.jpg

File:Aleya Al Menzer and her Children.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Aleya Al Menzer and her Children.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Aleya Al Menzer and her Children.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message concerning status of ArbCom case

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop#Case workflow management. Let me know if you need assistance, hmwith☮ 17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an update in the status of the case. Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop#Questions. hmwith☮ 17:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted the first round of questions on the Workshop. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 17:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the first set of answers, and for your patience. The second round of questions are now available. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you will be able to answer the last few questions, starting at question 7, in the next few days?

Also, please cast your eye over my proposals and feel free to comment on any of them underneath "Comment by parties". Let me know if anything doesnt make sense. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to do that. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence too long

Your evidence is over the length limit, which is 1000 words. Please shorten it or it will be cut off at 1000 words. Thanks, hmwith☮ 18:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Help on Arab topics

Marhaba Arab Cowboy. Thanks for pointing out those edits at the Pope Shenouda article. I found a lot of it to be biased and added some tags and a section at the talk page explaining why the article needs neutrality work. However, I haven't been active lately and won't be so active in the near future, at least for a few more months, so I don't really want to enter the Omar Sharif controversy, but I might take a quick look at it. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ameer. Actually, it's one sentence in Youssef Chahine, not Omar Sharif. How do you propose that the Pope Shenouda article be resolved? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

User:Arab Cowboy is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality for one year and is placed on a 1 revert per week restriction for one year.
User:Supreme Deliciousness is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to their ethnicity or nationality for one year and is placed on a 1 revert per week restriction for one year.
Asmahan is placed under article probation for six months.
Any article within the scope of this case, where an extended dispute related to the national or ethnic identity of an individual is occuring may be placed under article probation by an uninvolved administrator for up to six months.

Uninvolved administrators may perform escalating blocks on editors who do not abide by these remedies.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?

Are you still there? SD is acting up again on Asmahan! -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asmahan topic ban

For abuse of alternate accounts, you are banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case until June 15, 2010. If you violate this ban through either your main account or through sockpuppets, you will be blocked. NW (Talk) 18:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I have not created any sock puppet accounts! This is yet one more false accusation by Supreme Deliciousness. He has filed so many of those sock puppet investigations before and each time he has been proven false. Have you checked IP’s? Could you please post your evidence before you issue this topic ban….--Arab Cowboy (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked you per checkuser (IP information, among other things) evidence. You may appeal the block to the functionaries mailing list, the email address of which is functionaries-en

lists.wikimedia.org. NW (Talk) 22:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NW, It has now been a week since I emailed the functionaries list and no one has replied with the evidence requested. The Medjool account is indeed mine and has never been in violation of WP policies on the legitimate use of multiple accounts. The problem here is that no one took the time to ask the "accused" for an explanation before a decision was made on SD's frivolous SPI case. I am hereby requesting the ArbCom to reverse that decision and all consequesnces thereof. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed you an explanation of why your actions were against policy. You are welcome to file a public request for arbitration to ask for the lifting of your ban. NW (Talk) 16:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=335663771#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Asmahan --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnaceptable?

No it's not wrong if I correctly source it. some of the most liberal intellects in the Middle east from Algeria to relate by Pan-Arabism with facism and Nazism.This is the problem with pan-arabists you want to force your opinion with even those who disagree with it read the book The origins of totalitarianism then tell me I am the only one who thinks or argues that. Pan-Arabism is a racist and failed ideology. Which has the victims of many innocent people. Arabism is racism!, it is one of the most racist ideology ever to exist, it has been embedded with bigotry of its ultra nationalism against all non-Arabs or forcing the Label onto to non arabs and comitting cultural genocide (as well real life genocide like the farhud in Iraq and massacre in Darfur) since its inception, past and currect main victims of its racism include: Kurds (mainly in Iraq & in Syria), Berbers (in north Africa), Jews (Jewish victims of Arabism were even before Israel's re-establishment and today include not just in the middle east), black Africans (mosly in the Sudan, Mauritania, Egypt, but not exclusively) and Christians (Egypt and Lebanon) who have fell victim to this ideology.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Sharif

Is there any place online I can find this interview with Sharif where he denies that his family is of Lebanese origin? I really dont care if he is Egyptian or Lebanese or Russian, but we have to go with the sources. nableezy - 22:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have only seen it on TV. It was broadcast last Ramadan. He said, "all of my parents and grandparents were born in Egypt, and I am not of Lebanese origin as people write these days." --Arab Cowboy (talk) 06:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It being shown on TV is not enough for it to meet WP:V. There has to be some way of actually checking what was said. If you can find a transcript somewhere (Arabic is fine) or a video that can be accessed, even if that access is difficult, it could be used, but as it stands there are a ton of sources that say flat out that he was born to Lebanese-Egyptian, and sometimes Lebanese-Syrian, parents. I think you have the wrong idea of me, thinking I am just trying to help SD. I'm not, I'm just going by the sources, and all the sources I have seen say that he is from a Lebanese-Egyptian family. nableezy - 06:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Omar Sharif himself said that up to his grandparents generation were born in Egypt. I believe Omar more than I do the sources, given the fact that they all copy from each other, and many lazy ones just copy from WP. One published BOOK listed Omar as Greek (see the Talk page archives)! I have written many times on WP, especially on Asmahan, that what defines ethnicity and nationality is more belonging and choice than bloodlines, because no one is purebred anymore. People are not show dogs to have this line of argument, especially in the leads of articles! And, I do not think that Omar has an inkling of belonging to anywhere but Egypt (see the video clips that do exist on his Talk page). But that is not of too much importance... As for my idea of you, the first impression I had of you (since the first time I contacted you on your Talk page) was, and please forgive me for saying this, sheer incivility and confrontation. If you get that improved, everything else can be discussed. I started out on WP helping Syrian articles on the Golan Heights, and then maybe some Palestinian articles (I frequently contribute to the editorial pages of newspapers on this cause), but frankly, I have found SD (a Syrian) and you (a Palestinian, I presume) to be worse than the "enemies", so I ended up with a why-bother attitude. SD is lucky that I have not compromised my own values and resorted to helping the "enemies" against him, given his lowest-common-denominator attitude. In real life, I have great Palestinian friends, and a few Syrian relatives. But you guys are something else! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am Egyptian, not Palestinian; I just see that issue as much more important than where some singer or actor is from so I spend my time on that (and I also think the articles should just say "X is an Arab singer/actor" and forget about the other noise, but I grew up in a Nasserist house and retain a strong pan-Arab ideology). But to the point, I am sorry if you dont care what the sources say, but Wikipedia does care. If you have access to Lexis Nexis you can literally find over 100 reliable sources that say Sharif is from a Lebanese family. And unless you can provide a verifiable source that says otherwise the article has to reflect what the sources say. In a final note, I will attempt to be more civil with you, but this silly battle has to stop. We go by the sources here, end of story. Salam, nableezy - 15:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also, it has not just been written "these days" that Sharif is of Lebanese descent, Aramco World in 1971 wrote He's really Michel Shalhoub, an Alexandria-born, Lebanese-Syrian who took his stage name, as do most other actors, for precise box office reasons. See here. nableezy - 19:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, you retain your confrontational style! Also, you put words in my mouth, I never said that I do not care what the sources say, I said that many of the secondary, tertiary... sources are inaccurate and copy one from the other, so they are no longer accurate. It's an error propagated, and you are contributing to that. Omar Sharif himself is a source and he has written an autobiography (which I have read from cover to cover) and has given a lot of television interviews (of which I have seen many). On his own roots, Omar is more believable than the sources that make false claims about him, from being Greek, to Jewish-Palestinian, to Lebanese-Syrian. The reality in this matter is what he himself has stated: Egyptian up to his grandparents' generation, end of story. His grandparents were of Damascene origin (run with that to SD now), and that is what he has also stated and he has explicitly and categorically denied any roots in Lebanon. Note that this does not make Omar himself of Syrian origin, otherwise that would be original research. What else do you need? Believe it or not, my views are mostly pan-Arab, Nasserist too, hence my user name. Ever watch Hamdy Qandil? Also, please see the ignored rant from "Yasmina" above (whose opinions, together with Lanternix's, are supported by lowest-common-denominator SD). Wa alaykom al-salam. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is about as non-confrontational as I get. And I am well aware of Lanternix ans Yasmina, they have tagged up on the Pan-Arabism article to fill it with irrelevancies and bullshit. About Sharif though, if you can tell me where I can find him saying that he not of Lebanese origin then I might agree with it. But there is even a source about a documentary on Lebanon he appeared in saying he traces his roots to Lebanon and he says "You never stop being Lebanese". But if you can show me where I can find something that contradicts the sources we do have then I could do something about it. As it stands now though, the only verifiable sources we have say he does have a Lebanese background. nableezy - 15:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already told you about his autobography and the TV episode, with date, title, and channel. I cannot obtain a transcript of it for you. Where is that Lebanese decumentary where he talks of Lebanese roots? If this is the case, then he is talking from both sides of his mouth because I watched him with my own eyes epecifically exclude Lebanon from his roots! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

enforcement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arab_Cowboy --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating your topic ban.. 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. NW (Talk) 22:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Troublesome editor

Marhaba AC, long time no see (virtually that is)

Hello, Arab Cowboy. You have new messages at Al Ameer son's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Al Ameer son (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Please do not email me again. If you want to request an unblock, do so on this talk page. It might help if your entire message doesn't consist of insulting the blocking administrator. NW (Talk) 14:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, perhaps you should be told in public that you are an unfit and self-serving adminstrator. You have been told before that your trigger-happy blocks were not good practice, yet you do it again. The specific, unjustified ban in question that you have ignorantly (given the fact that you had not solocited my input on the background) imposed on my account stated, "For abuse of alternate accounts, you are banned from all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case until June 15, 2009. If you violate this ban through either your main account or through sockpuppets, you will be blocked. NW (Talk) 18:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)". My recent edits were on the "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard". Who's ever said that Noticeboards were the Talk pages of articles? Are you just making things up to serve your and the complaining editor's interests? If you do not want to be emailed, then remove your email address from your account. I had just seen this block and I did not request an unblock from you because I know that you will not be able to understand the inconsistency of your own actions. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Sharif was directly related to the Asmahan case. As the discussion moved from the talk page of the article to the BLP noticeboard and as the subject matter was directly related to why you got put on editing restrictions during the ArbCom case, you should have realized that it was still covered by the sanction. If you wish to appeal to another administrator, either use the {{unblock}} template or contact an administrator directly via email. NW (Talk) 16:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not realize that the noticeboard was covered by the sanction and I do not agree that it is. The sanction covered the Talk pages of the articles, not noticeboards. You cannot make that extension without prior proper notification and then warning. Your block is self-serving given the fact that you were the sanction imposing admin and we had taken this matter to appeal before, and is unjustified. Requests for Enforcement that I have seen have stayed for at least days for all parties to provide input and then a chance for arbitrators to discuss and conclude is given... Do you not see your actions as being fascist, especially in light that this is the second time around that you have done the same? What makes you think that you have sole and ultimate authority to decide, close, and archive an arbitration enforcement case 30 minutes after it's filed and without input from others, especially the accused party? You do not deserve to be an adminstrator on this website. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, the sanction was intended as a topic ban; note "topic ban" as opposed to "page ban". It does seem worth clarifying whether noticeboards fall under that -- "associated talk pages" could be taken to refer to article talk pages, only, or to any project pages where the subject in question is under discussion. I tend to shy away from reading most sanctions too much of a literal, legalistic sense, and prefer to use them for their apparently intended purpose: reducing drama and discouraging repeats of behavior that cause it. That being the case, I don't think it would be entirely unreasonable to apply the more liberal interpretation of the sanction's scope. If other users commenting likewise feel that interpretation is reasonable, would you agree to abide by that? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luna, I am not exactly sure what you are asking - please clarify. But, no I do not like liberal interpretations. I prefer the intended purposes to be spelled out in no uncertain terms. The sanction in question was based on the Asmahan arbitration case remedies, and it has been previously ruled that those remedies applied to the articles themselves, and not the Talk pages thereof. No liberal interpretations were allowed there. On 31 December 2009, NW, extended the ban to the talk pages of the articles, with which I have complied in spite of my disagreement, but he could not come now and extend the ban to noticeboards without that having been stated and with no violation of his ban from me! I could not care less for the block, it will expire in a few hours anyway, but I reject the liberal interpretations, and I do care about the mishandling of the case, the self-serving actions of the admin, and the Asmahan case record and my block record. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 06:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Sane Admin, Please Unblock

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:

Please see responses to blocking admin above. By NW's admission, the sanction covered article Talk pages only and NOT noticeboards. I did not see the extension from Talk pages to noticeboards and do not agree with it. If he had wanted noticeboards to be covered by his sanction, then he should have stated so in no uncertain terms. He should also have alerted me to the possible violation, issued a warning if found no cooperation, solicited input from other arbitrators since he was the sanction imposing admin and has a history with me during appeal, and then allowed others to decide this case. This admin is self -serving.

Decline reason:

There is a categorical difference between a page ban and a topic ban. The former deals with restrictions upon particular sets of pages; the latter deals with a broad topic. If you were topic banned on anything related to the discussion of "gay individuals," then that topic ban can carry over not only onto articles, but into noticeboards and associated discussion pages. Declining unblock due to topic ban violation. seicer | talk | contribs 06:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So why was this complaintfound not actionable if it was subject to the same topic ban as per the Asmahan case? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I ask that Cactus Writer judge this case. Cactus was behind the dismissal of the case linked above because of a "literal" reading of the topic ban, and he has been consistently "literal" in the reading of all policies and bans. Why is this suggested "liberal" interpretation applied to me now? Someone please ask Cactus to rule here. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not entitled to have specific admins review your requests. This request does not address the reason for your block and is therefore declined. Sandstein 07:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It does. I demanded a literal interpretation of the ban, not a liberal one. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The previous unblock requests DID address the reasons of the block. However, Sandstein requires an EXPLICIT challenge of the reasons of the block each and every time. I reiterate, the sanction placed by NW on 31 December 2009 DID NOT EXPLICITLY apply to Noticeboards (not even once) and I never understood it to do so. If he had intended it to apply to noticeboards, he should EXPLICITLY stated it in the ban. "I do not read minds", as Sandstein said on his Talk page. I DEMAND a literal reading of the ban and not a "liberal" one and I point you to this precedent where a literal reading of the TOPIC ban was upheld and editing of Talk pages was not found actionable. Why are you discriminating in the reading of the topic bans, once literally, and now liberally as you please? Why are you biased in favor of certain editors and POVs? Your bias and discrimination is too apparent and it is making Wikipedia a sorry place to be! Go ahead and block my talk page too, for this insanity is what I have come to expect from you.

Why did NW not issue an alert or warning on the noticeboard to possible violations of a "liberal interpretation" that was only in his mind? I upheld NW's topic ban on article Talk pages as per the wording thereof, and I was NOT subject to any restrictions on Noticeboards. Is the reason for the block sufficiently addressed now?

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Sir, I have reviewed all aspects of this block and am declining the unblock request. The point is almost moot as the block will expire in a few hours. Nevertheless you should know that the block is appropriate for the following reasons. First, your block did include "associated talk pages" of articles within the scope of the case. It is only wikilawyering to assert a Noticeboard was not included. Second, it was your editing on a topic that got you into trouble, therefore the remedy was to prevent your editing in a broad way within that area. Third, it is not reasonable to conclude that you can move from one venue to another to evade a ban. The topic you were discussing at the noticeboard was the same as that which got you into trouble. I would suggest that you remove yourself from the stress for a few more hours and return with an intent to edit collectively and with your colleagues here instead of against them. Let this issue pass.JodyB_talk 11:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

Jody, thank you for your politeness. I know it is a moor point and I do not care for the unblock. I only care to show you how much of an ugly place this website has become with those incompetent and self-serving admins. There is no "wikilawyering", whatever that is. I have only seen Cactus's literal interpretations of sanctions and I expected the same. I did NOT know that noticeboards were included. Was I required to read his mind? If he wanted his sanction to be upheld he should have been clear. It was his duty to spell out what he wanted, not mine to read his mind! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you're referrring to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive55#Supreme Deliciousness? Sanctions placed on SD at the time of that thread do not appear to mention discussion pages, where sanctions placed on you at this time do appear to mention discussion pages. "Associated talk pages" could reasonably be taken to include project pages, where the subject of the sanction is relevant. Still, I'll drop CactusWriter a note in the interest of fairness. – Luna Santin (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has ever mentioned that associated Talk pages include Noticeboards. If that was the case, then he should have spelled it out. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 12:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further abuse of the unblock request feature will result in the talk page being disabled for the duration of the block. Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 16:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AC, User:Luna Santin just notified me of this block and asked me to comment. I see that JodyB has already explained some of the situation. Essentially, the limits of the bans for you and SD are not the same -- so pointing to the other AE decisions doesn't follow. Yes, initially, you both received the same topic bans -- which still permitted use of article talk pages. However, after the Medjool incident, Nuclear Warfare expanded your topic ban to include all articles and their associated talk pages within the scope of the Asmahan case. Generally, it is understood that that means all pages in Wikipedia which discuss those articles. I'm sorry if you were not clear about the scope of that ban. Arbitrators and administrators will often add the term "broadly construed" when banning editors from talk pages so it is clear that notice boards and project discussion pages are included -- although that wording is usually unnecessary for more experienced editors like yourself. (I will include that language on the case page so that there is no further doubt). Of course, the ban does not include your own talk page -- for example, I see that the discussion above with Nableezy about Omar Sharif is perfectly acceptable and productive.

The bottomline is this: During the time period of your topic ban, you must avoid edits or discussion about any article within the scope of the Asmahan case. I'm certain you have other articles on which you are collaborating and will occupy your time during the following months. In the meantime, there are only a few hours left on the current block, so I hope you will take the time to relax away from Wikipedia. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SPA_only_performing_same_edits_as_another_user.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 04:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts, as described in more detail in SPI case. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for some of your uploads

Thanks for your uploads to Wikipedia. There is an issue with some of them, specifically:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the images because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the images, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image files themselves. Please update the image descriptions with URLs that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 03:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Fraid al-Atrash and Samia Gamal.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Fraid al-Atrash and Samia Gamal.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asmahan in her last film.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Asmahan in her last film.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliopolis Al-Gamea in Al-Gamea Square (2).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Al-Gamea in Al-Gamea Square (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliopolis Baron Palace (2).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Baron Palace (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliopolis Baron Palace Gardens (2).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Baron Palace Gardens (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliopolis Old Inhabitants 2 (2).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Old Inhabitants 2 (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliopolis Palace Hotel 4 (2).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Palace Hotel 4 (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heliopolis Palace Hotel 5 (2).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Heliopolis Palace Hotel 5 (2).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soad Hosny and Abdel-Halim Hafiz.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soad Hosny and Abdel-Halim Hafiz.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soad Hosny's Birth Certificate.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soad Hosny's Birth Certificate.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Asmahan in her last film.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Asmahan in her last film.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. czar 17:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]