User talk:Abidreh

Pashtun people
Thank you for your contribution to the Pashtun people article. But please don't list districts of Pakistan in the lead intro, that kind of detailed information goes in the demography section or else where. There are Pashtuna in Lahore, Karachi, Rawalpindi, Islamabad, but we also don't need that in the lead intro. Thank you.--PosePetal (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Attock bridge4.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Attock bridge4.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 13:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Fort9.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Fort9.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, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 13:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below.


 * I would unblock if I was the reviewing administrator. Being indefinitely blocked for edit warring is not very nice. However, I would like this user to see WP:NICETRY, unblock request number 3. Blaming someone else in an unblock request is not a very good unblock request. — MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  20:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand the complaint I have with yellowmonkey is a seperate issue to my unblock request. I would like to know how I can make a formal complaint against yellowmonkey who I feel has treated me badly removing my work and calling it stupid, and making false alligation about my sources being supermacist "rm stupid source and pov by Pashtun supremacist pov pusher" (yellowmonkey) I even tried putting the issues concerning the matter in the user talk page, but still he did not take any notice and removed my work. Also I have noticed him in the past were he will have his friends to do his edit wars for him, so each friend will undo my work 3 times and then sombody else will undo it 3 trimes. Abidreh (talk)


 * I wouldn't be against an unblock here. The editor has been blocked for well over a year and I think a new chance may be in order.  It is possible that this editor will come back and be very productive.  I would suggest that this editor go through a mentorship process. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)