User talk:KasimMejia

.

Hi KasimMejia! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I would kindly ask that you cancel your edit here [1]. Wikipedia has strict policy regarding Verifiability. At this time, all sources regarding the civilian deaths state they were killed due to Turkish strikes, not Syrian rebel strikes. Edits based on our personal opinions, if not backed-up by sources, are not permitted by Wikipedia and its considered a violation of Wikipedia's policy on unsourced Original Research. Thanks in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. KasimMejia (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If sources present themselves confirming civilian deaths due to TFSA strikes we can add them. EkoGraf (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a reliable source needed to term the Rojava offensive a Turkish invasion of Northern Syria?? I'm just basing this off of the definition of the word invasion itself and the Wikipedia article of that name. Around half of the sources out there have labeled it an invasion including this FoxNews article: https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-syria-invasion-special-forces-soldier-kurds and guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/10/kurdish-australians-families-syria-abandoned-turkish-invasion. I can give you 20 more if I looked further, but point is around a quarter or more articles out there have labeled it an invasion. Only Turkish nationalists and Erdogan are upset at the use of the word invasion. We should be objective and not appease one side over another. User178198273998166172 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you can revert me, I just think its not the correct word due to the controversy surrounding it. Other users might try to revert you too. KasimMejia (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2019 Rojava offensive. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ST47 (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ST47: I know you can't undo my block but can you do some updates at the article 2019 Rojava offensive, if I don't do it no one will apparently. Civilians casualties in Turkey have risen to 7 killed, including 5 children, would appreciate if you include the 5 children in the 10 October section [2](source). Turkish armed forces suffered their first casualty 1 KIA 3 WIA, would appreciate if you add this under Per Turkey [3](source). Again repeating, no one will apparently update the article since I'm blocked. KasimMejia (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I was not aware that 1RR applied to different reverts as well rather than the same, revert. I was not previously warned about it, I know the block is short but I am very active on a recent event article and %100 won't make any more reverts. KasimMejia (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

It does indeed look like you were unaware of the 1RR restriction while making the reverts. I understand your claim to mean that you will do no more reverts (0RR) for the remaining duration of the block (therefore, the block is no longer necessary), and after that, you will abide by 1RR where required. As such, I have lifted your block. Welcome back, and thank you for your calm unblock request which addressed the concerns. Yamla (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. KasimMejia (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As to PA's "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on the wiki.", given that I did not mark either Turkish source as VF yours was an unfounded accusation.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I told this user he has added original research and POV and now he is accusing me of serious accusations, who is accusing who? KasimMejia (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did accuse me of this, based upon you thinking that posting a VF tag after source A meant I also meant source B and C (even though they are after the tag) [[4]]. I have asked you not to make unfounded accusations, now I am warning you. If you continue to make these accusations I will report you. This is my last word in this matter.Slatersteven (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow okay, looks like you didn't add that to the Turkish source, nevertheless what's the point? I responded you about this at the article talk page as well. You shouldn't get so quickly offended, after all I just said it was POV and OR. KasimMejia (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep up this attitude [[5]], especially when your interpretation of policy is wrong, you are going to get blocked.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise reading wp:tendentious, you need to read that ANI and what has been said on the article talk page and take it as a warning sign. I think the tone of the ANI (I may be wrong) expressed a degree of frustration I have rarely seen in response to a first report.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know I actually deleted that ANI 5 minutes after opening it but you restored it. So you shouldn't accuse me for it, I deleted it shortly afterwards. ---- Actually now checking, it looks like I forgot to delete it but instead deleted the notification instead from your page. [6] KasimMejia (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning you need to take more care. Its mistakes (and accusations) like this that a part of the problem. Whilst I may not always agree with it this is a standard many edss expect wp:CIR.Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consecutive edits count as one edit.Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may have pushed well beyond 1rr [[7]] [[8]] [[9]], there are more but i'll stop there. note altering any edit is a revert.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dude what? First one is an update on casualties, that's not a revert. The second one I self reverted [10],[11] and that last one is just improving wording. I think you need to read this better Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules as well as Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions. KasimMejia (talk) 12:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A revert "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." thus it counts as a revert, you undid another users edits. It does not matter if you are "updating casualties" its still a revert. this [[12]] is another one, want more?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you undo one more edds edits in the next 24 hours I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that edit I took out an old source that said clashes were ongoing and replaced it after its capture. I literally used the same website that the user had used. (SOHR). Please report me because I think admins will warn you instead of me for these accusations. KasimMejia (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Wow, go ahead and report me. I didn't do a single revert at that article today, also read Wikipedia:Assume good faith KasimMejia (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said when I would, but will now revise, if you undo or reverse any 2 edits over any given 24 hour period I will report you.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead and report me now because I really wonder what an admin will think of your bad faith behavior. KasimMejia (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am required to warn you you are edit warring first, I have now done so.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, unbelievable. Do you think I'm reverting somebody? Do you think I'm editing in bad faith? KasimMejia (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have noticed your interest in topics related to Syria. We are currently having a move discussion here and your contribution would be most welcome. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. [13] KasimMejia (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This falls afoul of WP:CANVAS.--Calthinus (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KasimMejia You appear to not be editing this article - Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019) in good faith. Please desist from working on it. You have nominated it for deletion, raised an admin noticeboard notification, removed it as a see also from another page that it was clearly connected to, littered it with citation tags, put four problem banner tags....and are now deleting bits of text for various reasons, some of which are I suspect dubious. You are clearly not editing in good faith, and I suspect may have another agenda. Please cease working on it or I will ask an admin to have you banned from the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to not be editing this article - Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019) in good faith ... You are clearly not editing in good faith, and I suspect may have another agenda. ... Please cease working on it or I will ask an admin to have you banned from the article.. Please go ahead and do that because I wonder what the admins response will be. KasimMejia (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please revert the edits you've made, and we can discuss them in the talk page?. I'm just trying to avoid an edit war. If you could put the background back in, as well as the information about the 2.2 million people living in the safezone. Big changs to a page like that should be made after consensusWP:CON Thank you.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I can't, I'll explain why, and next time try to discuss with somebody before accusing them of having and agenda, bad faith and threatening to have an admin banned the user. (Which you should still try I think.) The reason I can't is because those sections are not related to the specific battle but just information about the larger operation and are already written in the operations article. You should not re-write and copy everything to another article and stick to the information about the battle.KasimMejia (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KasimMejiaI am trying to discuss this with you, but you seem intent on making changes without discussion. I asked you to return the material to the page, and seek consensus on the changes, but you won't. I will be submitting this to the Admin's noticeboard and asking them to have you blocked from editing the page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KasimMejiaSorry, I really don't think you should be editing on this page, for the reasons listed above. I have asked Admins to look at the issue. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of battles involving the Ottoman Empire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Croatia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia promotes and requests respectful and civil manners. Please abstain from rude, respectless, insulting edit summaries. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an insult buddy. KasimMejia (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how can i create a page? Baran Ahmet (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Asked and answered at the help desk. Eagleash (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Your mention of the United States Congress in the 2019 Hong Kong Protests article is particularly exceptional. Definitely a great edit for the page as it stands. Thank you! Kobentori (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you cancel your edit here [14]. Like I explained in my previous edit summary, It was discussed at one point and a compromise solution was reached. Due to the fact many non-Turkish media outlets like Reuters are including those 2 deaths from the Olive Branch area in the overall Peace Spring death toll that a note was to be added for them. Also, at the time when those 2 deaths occurred SOHR also reported on them as part of Peace Spring (not Olive Branch) and are including those two in their own toll (another purpose of the note). If you wish for it to be removed, you need to open a new discussion and reach a consensus, while per Wikipedia's policy the status quo is to be preserved in the article until then, which means the note is supposed to stay until a settlement is reached through the discussion. Thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf Can you link me to the discussion which took place, I did not see it in the talk page. As for reporting by the media outlets, I'm sure they reported it, doesn't necessarily mean they are correct. WP:CONSISTENCY, if we are to be adding casualties part of OP OB to OP PS then casualties among the SDF ought to be included as well alongside Turkish. Also, what's the point of writing the OP OB to OP PS when they are separate operations, casualties of TAF are written in OP OB. It just falsely double writes those casualties (POV pushing?). Furthermore, a note for just 2 Turkish casualties bloats the infobox.KasimMejia (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, I would avoid trying to insinuate a fellow editor is trying to falsely double write casualties (POV pushing). Its not in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith. Second, I am telling you how 3rd party news sources and SOHR are reporting the casualties. 3rd party sources such as Reuters are reporting the two deaths (incorrectly) as part of Peace Spring. SOHR also counted up (incorrectly) the two deaths to Peace Spring when they took place. Due to this inconsistency the note was added so to clear up the situation for our readers. The relevant discussion took place here [15]. People were arguing over the two and there was even an edit war. Until I made a compromise edit [16] after which the arguments at the talk page stopped as well as the edit war. The note has been in place since then for almost a month without any arguments from the involved editors. So I do not understand what prompted your opposition to the note at this time. In any case, if you still want to remove the note I won't argue anymore since I am not in a habit of edit warring. EkoGraf (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf Hi, I did not ignore your message, was away from keyboard at the time. I didn't accuse you of anything, I've stated that inclusion of Turkish casualties as part of another OP without including others side casualties in that OP, is POV pushing, and violates, WP:CONSISTENCY. Just because some news reports counted them together doesn't make it true, news can fall into the error of WP:EDITDISC. Regards. KasimMejia (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Inter Cold War Tensions and Second Cold War has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noted you removed this link from the page. There was a previous discussion on the articles talk page about whether the link should be on the page, and the consensus achieved by the editors was that *the article link should remain*. Please do not remove it without discussion on there is a consensus to do so. Thanks Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KasimMejia - please do not engage in edit warring. There is a current discussion going on about the results in the info box. You have reverted the current status, on your own logic, without seeking consensus with the editors in discussion. I am now reverting you. Please leave the status as it is until consense is reached. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG. The "discussion" ah yes, the discussion which you opened after making the requested change. Discussions are opened to request a change, not to keep the change that you already made... KasimMejia (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @KasimMejia:. I wanted to let you know that I struck through the second comment you posted at wp:Articles for deletion/2019 Tell Rifaat clashes. Since you nominated the article for deletion, your opinion is already recorded. There is no need to post a second bolded opinion (often called a !vote or "not vote"). I hope this helps. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 Iraqi protests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2019 Israeli airstrikes in Iraq requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Aden (2019). When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Finngall ^talk 17:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kasim, do you know who is the blocked user who created these articles? I want to see why he was blocked. Thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. He was blocked for socking though. You could ask the admins to restore the history, I want the users who contributed to vote on undeletion. KasimMejia (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The protests did happen in al-bab, not just pro SDF media reported on it moreover there is a video showing it, your pro Turkish stance is staggering KasimMejia, it has relevance to the subject it shows people in Al-bab don't like the Turkish presence, its around the Turkish occupied zone it is important and you removing it is wrong. There are pictures and videos. Should i removed protests in FSA that caused the FSA to exist? No that would be absurd don't remove civilian protests they are important. Why did you removed background section also, overall it does not matter to much but it gives important context to the fighting yet you just decided to remove it.

The place to discuss such things is usually article talk page. And you should watch your tone, otherwise you might get blocked for violating WP:GF KasimMejia (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the improvement of the article. I didn't find the Turkish backed Syrian army anymore to relink it, after rephrasing. The SDF agreed to a cease-fire and a departure. That was in the news, so I thought I add it. If they would have won, had they not retreated, we don't know. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I checked your account per your UTRS request for IPBE and found it likely that you are the same editor as A4516416. As this constitutes an abuse of multiple accounts, you are now blocked indefinitely. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:23, 28 November 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Yes I am that user, though I did not use it for socking purposes, if you take a look at the contributes of both accounts you can see that I barely used A4516416 when I started using this account. I've made about ~15 edits with A4516416 after I started using this account, none of which apply to WP:ILLEGIT KasimMejia (talk) 07:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have to be joking. Your first actions with this account, after gaming autoconfirmed, were to evade an edit warring block on your other account by continuing to edit war using this account. ST47 (talk) 07:18, 29 November 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

It's a rookie mistake, did we all behave at our best on our first day in Wikipedia? I was too unfamiliar with the rules back then and I admit my mistake, I did not repeat it after learning about it, and certainly do not intent on repeating it in the future. KasimMejia (talk) 07:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If this was a case of only accidentally violating WP:EW or WP:3RR or something, sure. But no, you set up a whole other account after you knew perfectly well what your other account was blocked for, to continue violating the policy. This was a deliberate action. You were being deliberately malicious. And you were attempting to hide your actions. So you were being deliberately misleading. Claiming this was a rookie mistake is deeply disturbing. You showed a clear pattern of refusing to follow the rules, even after you clearly knew them, and went out of your way to do so deceptively. Perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Yamla (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

The previous admin did not review this case in detail, contradictory to his or her decline reason, I did not set up a whole new account after being blocked. I've already had this account autoconfirmed by the time the other one was blocked for 31 hours. And used this while that block had 10 hours left due to being unable to stop myself, for which I've admitted my guilt, did not repeat again, and do not intent on repeating in the future. This happened at a time I was much less unfamiliar with the rules of Wikipedia. KasimMejia (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's interesting that you also gamed autoconfirmed on A4516416 in the exact same way. What other account have you used? ST47 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2019 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not use any other account, as you can see in the initial block reason the admin viewed my request for IP ban exemption, in which he found the second account that I had used. The reason for the block is that I evaded the block on one of them while the block had 10 hours left, I didn't make any other rule violation. This one which I did, I admit it is a severe violation that warrants indefinite block. However Wikipedia's rules, take time to grasp. I violated that block which had 10 hours left at a time I was very unfamiliar with editing, thinking that it wouldn't be a big violation went ahead with it. Now after a few months I am much more informed about the rules and had I had my knowledge now about the rules back then, I would not have made the action. KasimMejia (talk) 07:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Disingenuous. Please read that portion of the WP:GAB pertaining to sock puppetry and checkuser blocks. -- Deepfriedokra 22:46, 2 December 2019 (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.

For future reference, I did include some rough notes in one of my Checkuser wiki subpages (@ST47: as an FYI}}).-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 1963 Israel–United States standoff requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=1963%20Israel%E2%80%93United%20States%20standoff&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0&noredirect=true. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Britishfinance (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KasimMejia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Tradewar1231".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 12:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]