User talk:Zahrazamedahmedi

Hello, I'm Liance. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mansour Mohamed al-Muslah have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ~Liance^talk 14:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Kerry Raymond. Thank you for editing Wikipedia. I noticed that some of the linking you did at Kidston State Battery & Township via the Add a Link structured task appears to have added an inappropriate link.

Please keep in mind that the link suggestions you are shown are machine-generated and will be wrong some of the time. Your role in the task is to identify which suggestions are correct and add only those links.

We value a small number of good edits over a larger number with more errors, so you are encouraged to edit slowly at a pace that makes you confident in your judgements. Editors who rush through the task and make many errors may be restricted.

If you have any questions about the Add a Link task, feel free to reply to ask me or to submit a question to your mentor. Thank you. Kerry (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

hi Kerry Raymond ok I will try my best not to add any inappropriate link hopefully. Kindest regards. Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zahrazamedahmedi, I wanted to talk about the back-and-forth on the article Nala (cat). The citation next to gender links to an instagram page stating that the cat is male, but the owners refer to it as 'her' due to the desire to have a pair of cats named 'Nala' and 'Simba'. I would understand not referencing an instagram post at all, but I do feel if it states "sex" in the infobox with the instagram reference we should reflect the contents of the page. I understand this is a whole can of worms, but I just wanted to get your take on it. Maltice (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

I do understand that the citation next to gender links to an Instagram page starting that the cat is male.

Kindest Regards,

Zahrazamedahmedi Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. The way I see the issue, the two best solutions for the article in keeping with policy would either be to list 'sex' as 'male', or delete this item from the infobox entirely. I was wondering if you feel one of these solutions is preferable, or if you see this issue differently?

Maltice (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

I think one of these solutions is preferable.

Kindest regards,

Zahrazamedahmedi Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

virginiaseocompany.co: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • blacklist hits • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List_of_Sanrio_characters. CoconutOctopus talk 14:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

A cube (Aka hexahedron) …

If you must do something like that, don't capitalize nor bolden the "aka" (which is not a word anyway):

A cube, also called a hexahedron, …

(But there are other hexahedra, so your addition was undone rather than improved.) —Antonissimo (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello!

Sorry for capitalising and bolding the aka. I will try my best to not be that bold.

Kindest regards,

Zahrazamedahmedi Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 04:41, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Zahrazamedahmedi! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Hello!, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

{{Unblock|I made a mistake}}

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Yamla (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Yamla. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be gaming the system. Gaming the system is defined as misusing Wikipedia's policies for personal advantage at the expense of other editors. Wikipedia policies exist to support constructive collaboration, not to be used tactically to disrupt or "win" disputes. Gaming the system is easily spotted and your contributions are always public. Examples of gaming the system may include, but are not limited to:

• Wikilawyering — excessively literal or selective interpretation of policies to sidestep their intent
• Cherry-picking wording from a policy to support a view that does not in fact match with or comply with policy
• Repeatedly pushing a viewpoint with which the community consensus clearly does not agree
• Gaslighting — such as rewriting history or denying clear evidence of prior actions
• Abuse of process, including but not limited to gaming of the AfC process (ex: removing the record of previous reviews)
• Deliberately reverting another editor's edits in one article in retaliation for a dispute elsewhere
• Making unconstructive or trivial edits to raise your user access level

You can find more details on gaming the system, including more examples of potentially problematic behavior, at Wikipedia:Gaming the system. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk, or reach out to me at my talk page. Thanks. --Yamla (talk) 05:27, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I made a mistake

Decline reason:

"I made a mistake" is merely a statement of fact, and does not tell us why you believe you should be unblocked.

In any case, it is pretty pointless appealing a 24 hr block, when typical wait times for unblock requests to be reviewed is several days or even weeks. Just sit this one out, and use the time to think about what you need to do differently going forward so that you don't get blocked again. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2026 (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.

Why on earth did you link Programming tool in to the article, .xxx, when discussing top-level domains? This is clearly not a programming tool and you literally just got off a block for advertising. Overlinking or linking to obviously unrelated articles is a problem and may lead to further blocks if you do so again. --Yamla (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I am very sorry for doing this, please forgive me

Kindest Regards, Zahrazamedahmedi Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 12:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Plastering a bunch of random bots which you've never interacted with barnstars is not appropriate behaviour. Please stop it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I am so sorry. I just wanted to give a bot a Barnstar. I promise I'll stop.

Kindest Regards, Zahrazamedahmedi Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Zahrazamedahmedi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 16:12, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Yamla (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Yamla I am very sorry for doing abuse of editing privileges. Please forgive me if you will. Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I promise I will not do any abuse of editing privileges ever again. Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:GAB explains how to contest your block. You need to demonstrate you understand what you were doing incorrectly and despite how more than a year of warnings wasn't enough to get you to take a different approach. --Yamla (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

OK, I will wait for the block to expire, then I will not do any abuse of editing privileges ever again.

Kindest Regards, Zahrazamedahmedi Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	For your contributions around here. Cheers! Volten001 ☎ 22:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Most welcome Zee. Nice time! Volten001 ^☎ 22:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Please, do not add random GA or FA nominations to talk pages. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 08:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I really looked forwardnto promote good articles and a featured article, but I promise I will not add random GA and FA nominations.

Kindest Regards, Zahrazamedahmedi Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 08:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

sorry to make a spell mistake Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You do need to calm down a bit with the awards - they're special because they're hard earned, and, whilst it's appreciated, you've just given me four awards in two days and we've never spoken before!

Please try to only give awards to editors where you've seen them do something really great, and try to do no more than one a day so they really have meaning and are special to that person, ok?

Look through my user page, you'll see that almost everyone has explained what I've done that impressed that person and why they thought I should have a particular award. That thoughtfulness made each one very special to me, because they were all different and meaningful.

Explain in the award template what you saw the editor do that made you think they deserve an award, and why you feel that barnstar/wikilove is appropriate.

That way, it'll have a lot more meaning to you and to the person who receives the award. Blue-Sonnet 09:48, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I promise I will calm a bit with the awards.

Kindest Regards,

Zahrazamedahmedi Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Great! It is good to appreciate other editors, just take time to make them special. Edit Wikipedia in the meantime so you can learn what's important and what should be rewarded. Blue-Sonnet 09:57, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I will take time to make them special. I'll also try my best edit Wikipedia in the meantime as well.

Kindest Regards,

Zahrazamedahmedi Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Zahrazamedahmedi, since your last message here you have sent three barnstars and one other WikiLove template, two of which had basically no explanation. You also opened a peer review for Pear, an article that you have never edited. This is becoming disruptive. You need to stop doing these things before you get blocked again. Toadspike [Talk] 17:18, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi,

I promise I will stop doing any disruptive editing.

Kindest Regards,

Zahrazamedahmedi Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Please try to focus on learning more about Wikipedia first, that way you'll know who deserves awards and which articles are good. "Good articles" and "Featured articles" have very specific criteria and it usually takes a few editors who work really hard on it, before it's anywhere near ready. After that's done, they might consider possibly making the nomination - Featured articles in particular have to be the best of the best, and are really hard to achieve.

Try things like The Wikipedia Adventure and our tutorials, then you can get going with some basic Newcomer tasks.

Once you've got some more knowledge under your belt, find a subject that interests you and see if there's a Wikiproject group that you can join. After that, you can think about Barnstars again, since you'll properly understand what they are for and know who deserves to get one. Blue-Sonnet 17:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi,@Blue-Sonnet

I will try my best to focus more on learning about Wikipedia first.

I also understand that "good articles" and "featured articles" have very specific criteria and it usually takes a few editors who really work hard on it.

Kindest regards,

Zahrazamedahmedi Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Great, that's really good to hear! If you need help you can ask at the Teahouse, someone is always there to answer any questions. Blue-Sonnet 17:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Zahrazamedahmedi. You have new messages at PhilKnight's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 16:29, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Zahrazamedahmedi, are you trying to leave a message for Phil? You can do that by creating a new topic on his talk page, or pinging him on another page (like this one). Blue-Sonnet 16:52, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Hi,

After viewing the page, Template:talkback, I wanted to practice using it for first time use. Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah ok, no problem! Blue-Sonnet 16:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

	Raph Williams65 Guestbook Barnstar
	Hello Zahrazamedahmedi, this barnstar is presented to you for signing my guestbook . Thanks a ton. – Raphael 17:59, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 74, March–April 2026

• New partnership: Swissdox
• User survey results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 10:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

		The Barnstar for the Oops
		mistakes can be fixed, but u have made a lot, so we both give this to u! AltoHampton t • c • g • s 22:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

@AltoHampton Every editor is a idiot, but you can stop being a idiot fixing their mistakes. :) VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

And yes, I’m also a idiot in Wikipedia, and I’m proud of it! :D VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 04:01, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

i kinda phrased it weirdly… so it sounds off, but u get what i mean. (fixing previous mistakes to be better) AltoHampton t • c • g • s 05:21, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@AltoHamptonThank you so much for this cool Barnstar! Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

ur welcome. and i’m sorry if i phrased the message weirdly. AltoHampton t • c • g • s 05:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

No problem 😊! Zahrazamedahmedi (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The third round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 28 June at 23:59 (UTC). As a reminder, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, while peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 3 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points; eight scored over 500; and thirteen scored over 300. The top three contestants had at least one featured article (two of them with two apiece). The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• MCE89 (submissions) with 1567 points, mainly from good and featured articles about Australian people and geography, as well as some article reviews
• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1547 points, mainly from good articles, featured articles, featured lists, and a good topic about figure skating, along with 20 article reviews
• Reconrabbit (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from a high-multiplier featured article on European rabbit and several good articles, DYKs, and reviews
• A.Cython (submissions) with 1004 points, mainly from good articles about warfare, along with 22 article reviews
• Generalissima (submissions) with 859 points, mainly from good and featured articles about rivers and East Asian topics

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 12 featured articles, 12 featured lists, 7 featured-topic articles, 117 good articles, 74 good-topic articles and more than 30 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 13 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 180 reviews. The tournament points table has been updated.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2026 (UTC)