User talk:Maqa001

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Raaso, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page President. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I've revert a bunch of your edits per MOS:LINK and MOS:ITALICS. Please pay particular attention to MOS:OL/MOS:DL. – ².O.^Boxing 12:02, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for providing me with this information, You can be sure that I will follow these rules more carefully from now on. --Maqa001 (talk) 12:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Style changes

I have reverted your recent changes to Shinile (woreda). Wikipedia articles conform to our Manual of Style. In particular, we do normally do not link dates, we use bold text sparingly and do not like common terms such as Women. I see that another editor has reverted similar changes to Shuko Aoyama. We do appreciate your efforts, but please ensure that future edits do not alter the article's style in this way. Thanks, Certes (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You very much, You can be sure that I will try to follow these rules more carefully from now on. --Maqa001 (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP

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).

Maqa001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi @ST47, I know that someone in this IP range can use proxy or VPN but I am actual user and i cannot edit anything that i need. Please if it is possible can you block specific user? Maqa001 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You forgot to tell us your IP address so we can't investigate your claim. You can find this using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS to provide the IP address privately. Yamla (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Maqa001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. My IP address is 188.253.236.249. Place any further information here. Yamla Maqa001 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline as your account isn't directly blocked and thus you could edit through another IP. Lifting the proxy block would be unlikely; a better option is to go to WP:IPECPROXY and follow those directions to request IP block exemption through email. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2023 (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.

About IP Problem

Hi, @Daniel Case thatnk you for your answer. How can I get my user not blocked even the IP was bolcked? Thank you! Maqa001 (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I explained why in my decline: you can request IP block exemption by email by going to WP:IPECPROXY and following those instructions. Daniel Case (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Daniel Case for your patient reply. First time I didn't see the email because of the dark theme. Maqa001 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... then. I learned something today. I'll remember this next time the ongoing discussions about adding a dark-mode option come up at the Community Wishlist Survey. Daniel Case (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you! Maqa001 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 07:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - further to the above, I've raised a thread at WP:AN, asking for community review of these blocks. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit Please watch to my unblock request. Maqa001 (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2023 (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).

Maqa001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Girth Summit _(blether)My block in my opinion was baseless and not based on any evidence, I have not participated in any conflicts and if you look at my activity you will see that I have only edited or created articles, please look carefully at this block again and put an end to this misunderstanding. I think it would be to your advantage that a user like me, who is active and always edits and creates articles, not only does not fall into the block, but is always under the spotlight for self-development. Would you please remove the block. Sincerely--Maqa001 (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

None of this is relevant. You were blocked for violating WP:SOCK but have not addressed this. Yamla (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Maqa001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@Yamla You are not looking at it from the right perspective, there can be no proof or claim that I am a Sockpuppetry. Where is your attention? Ip may be the same because of internet provider or ISP but in the end I didn't cause any vandalism or contention problem. The IP he edited now is my IP, you can check the previous ones, maybe if you look at the last year, all of them have been edited from this IP, please keep this in mind. I say at once that I am not a Sockpuppetry user and I have done everything I can to prove it, I am, I will. May the mercy of the great architect of the universe be upon you.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

About block

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).

Maqa001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear @Girth Summit, @Yamla, @Deepfriedokra Wikipedia users and Administrator please understand my situation, even today i conn't wholly understand why i was block, I remember that 1 time I edited Azerbaijan article after that started this block, If you watch to this edit I was added only one reference. I am very sorry that i was edited, and i give you word that i will not edit article of Azerbaijan (even though i am Azerbaijani), even I can say that I will not edit any of the country articles. Secondly, that I understood that I was blocked because of IP range and I gave my message with unblocking request after that you wrote that we blocked you for other thing. I give you a word that i will never edit from that ip that I have been blocked. If you watch to my history you can say that I am rightful user of wikipedia. I didn't, don't and won't have any problem with wikipedians and wikipedia. I dont have any radical ideas and any other negative mindset. I didnt write and dont have any bad mindset of any nation and I didn't added any thing to wikipedia in my whole life. I am not a sockpuppet or other negative and unnatural thing. Please be informed. If you can please get in touch with me any time. i have in every social platforms any time you can please contact me. If you dont my original name you can write below for it. Please Administrators and other prioritized person unblock and watch for my activities if it would any harm to any thing block me again without unblocking. I understand my problem and it wouldn't be repeated with your help. Thank you if you read whole text and attention. Administrator please understand my situation and give me one chance. Maqa001 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I am not a sockpuppet" is what virtually every sockpuppet says, and the rest of your unblock request does not address the cause of your block - that a CheckUser determined this account was a sockpuppet. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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