Yousefsw07
August 2023 edit
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Tunisian–Algerian War (1694), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Banu Thabit, you may be blocked from editing. R Prazeres (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Wazzin. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. R Prazeres (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. R Prazeres (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Warfalla, you may be blocked from editing. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 20:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Block edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 14:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC) There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. R Prazeres (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
November 2023 edit
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Soviet-Moroccan fishing vessel incident (1980-1981), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
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.
Yousefsw07 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Dear Wikipedia Administrators,
I am writing to appeal the recent decision to block my editing privileges on the platform. I understand that my actions might have raised suspicions, particularly in relation to the restoration of an older version of the article on the Soviet-Moroccan naval incident. However, I would like to clarify that my intentions were solely aimed at enhancing the article's clarity for readers through the inclusion of an informative infobox.
I am not, nor have I ever been, affiliated with the user "@Lefootop" or "@S Molecular," as suggested. The assumption that I am a sock puppet for either of these users is entirely unfounded and inaccurate. @Drmies claims that I am geographically close to @Lefootop, this does not substantiate the claim that I am the same person as the aforementioned users. I assure you that my contributions to Wikipedia have been made in good faith, with the sole purpose of improving the quality and accuracy of the information available to readers.
I have a genuine passion for history and a deep respect for the integrity of the information shared on this platform. Being blocked without proper investigation or conclusive evidence is not only disheartening but also unfair. I respectfully request a thorough review of this situation and for you guys to look at both sides, which will undoubtedly highlight my innocence and commitment to upholding Wikipedia's standards of transparency and credibility.
I sincerely hope that you will reconsider the decision and grant me the opportunity to continue contributing positively to the Wikipedia community. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely, @Yousefsw07 Yousefsw07 (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Yeah, well, you logged out of this account at 18:29, logged into the S Molecular account within the same minute, logged out of that one a minute later, and logged back into this one. So, back to you regarding "transparency". --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 01:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
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.