User talk:A poor son of Adam

.

Appriciated

I Have been following some edits you made in few articles and just wanted to say you are doing such a good joob Nedim Sancar (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (second request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Circassian genocide into Russo-Circassian War. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I totally forgot. I will remember from now on. A poor son of Adam (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give me or a way I can communicate with you.

I am a fellow adiga in diaspora burning with the passion of research. I am learning russian as fast as I can but I need sources to learn more about my mother tongue and history. Please help. 176.88.74.91 (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add me in discord. Patlichan#6133 A poor son of Adam (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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).

A poor son of Adam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As explained here I have not used any of my accounts for sockpuppetry. I do not use my old account, "Adigabrek", anymore, and have switched over to this one (because my old account was involved in drama gives me mild PTSD to this day). I do not want anything to do with that drama anymore but I want to still write in wikipedia. I have been an editor in Wikipedia for 2 years and I have never made those two even interact with each other in any talk page etc. I only use Adigabrek for small edits when this account doesn't have permission but Adigabrek does. I am IP banned from all of wikipedia for simply switching accounts?! And I wasn't even notified of my investigation (which didn't even reach the consensus that I am a "sockpuppet", as all comments were stating that it isn't a violation). How do you justify this block? @Bbb23: A poor son of Adam (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As Bbb23 says your best bet of being unblocked is take the standard offer and re-apply in 6 months time. PhilKnight (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2022 (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.

(edit conflict) This is not a case of serial editing. You edited both accounts at the same time. You edited a very large number of the same pages. There was no legitimate basis for you to use two accounts. The fact that you stopped using the older account recently doesn't change your history before that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Even so, how is this in violation of policy...? My goal was always to ultimately abandon the old account (which I later did), I have not angaged in any talk pages etc. to push the view that I am two seperate people, and always declared that I am the same people the instant I learned of the policy for haing two accounts. My intention (or practice) was never malicious. Is it really worth an infinite ban..? I do like this project. A poor son of Adam (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

always declared that I am the same people the instant I learned of the policy for haing two accounts? When did you "learn" that socking was a violation of policy?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I don't remember the date, but I saw a text in someone's profile about how they are not a sockpuppet, and are a legitimate account. Then I realized maybe not making it clear is a violation, made it clear that I am not a sockpuppet and a legitimate new account. Recently after I abandoned the account Adigabrek for good, i removed the mention by name from my profile, because I did not want anything to do with it anymore. You can confirm this in my edit history. It should be clear my intention was never malicious. A poor son of Adam (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to search your own edit history.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Here, you can see that I clearly stated I am bored of my old account. At this point I was sick of a discussion I was involved in, and announced in my old account that I'll leave wiki for good. But later, I wanted to come back to wiki, as I enjoy editing it. This account, "A poor son of Adam", actually was an account I made previosly to write this comment without my main account being traced by FSB and cause me problems irl. But now I am aware that is already inevitable. Keep in mind that my old account has not been involved in that discussion whatsoever. The reason for opening this was to ensure my IRL security. When I was going to open a new account for a new start, I thought that I already had this one and could use it, and maybe having three accounts from the same PC is banned, so I entered this account and made a fresh start away from my previous one. I have problems with emotions, and tend to live them in extremes, my therapist has sown me several ways to avoid this and I try my best. But I can not get away from the anxiety associated with that old account, so this move was necessary for me. I will not try to bypass this block (don't know if it's even possible), but I want to keep editing Wikipedia. If I was in violation of policies, I understand a ban, but since my intentions were not malicious, I do not understand the point of an infinite ban. A poor son of Adam (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging me. You are on my watchlist, and if I wish to respond, I will. At this point, my suggestion is you take the standard offer and come back in six months with a more convincing unblock request showing some understanding of what you've done wrong.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why should a productive editor that had been helping expand Wikipedia for months be enacted a punishment this extreme when they haven't even actually done anything wrong? Sure, this user should have completely dropped their old account after this new start, but the user has admitted that the two accounts are related for a long time and there is no evidence that either account was abused for the user's own benefit. Couldn't a warning have been given, instead of such a cold and insensitive approach? Going after users for the sake of bureaucracy is not going to help anyone. Super Ψ Dro 12:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, A poor son of Adam

Thank you for creating İhsan Eliaçık.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, A poor son of Adam

Thank you for creating Misost Bematiqwa.

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi. I don't know what the article is about. It states he was a Kabardian Grand Prince, of where? Also please identify some of the people in the article, and see if they seperate articles so they can be linked.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Scope creep}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

scope_creep^Talk 17:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hawduqo Mansur for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hawduqo Mansur is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hawduqo Mansur until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Nalchik War (1720–1721) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nalchik War (1720–1721) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nalchik War (1720–1721) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean–Circassian War (1616–1640) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Crimean–Circassian War (1616–1640), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Message

I left you a message at User talk:Adigabrek. Wanted to say it here since I do not know in which account will you first see the notification, if you do. Super Ψ Dro 20:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standart offer

Hello, @PhilKnight

I would like to take Wikipedia:Standard offer as suggested. Am I eligible?

I have understood clearly the rules regarding using multiple accounts no matter what the reason or intent.

I believe I should be unbanned because I was an active contributor and would like to continue contributing to the best of my abilities. I have access to books (physically and in PDF format) that are usually hard to find which are gems when it comes to the topic I edit in - Circassians. Before my block due to usage of multiple accounts, I was an active contributer making use of these sources, and I wish to continue to do so. I believe it will be of benefit to the project.

I thank @Super Dromaeosaurus for reminding me that the required time has passed. After my block, I decided to take my time, and during this period I have researched so much more and gained more knowledge especially about the medieval period and the 1800s. I will admit that as a result of this I've asked some of my friends to make edits fixing some things (that either I myself previously got wrong, or someone else), but I have not attempted to edit Wikipedia myself using any of my accounts. I don't know if this is a problem, but I thought you should know just in case. I am aware that I was blocked and this block served the purpose of teaching me to be more careful and made me understand what exactly I had done wrong - something I did not fully understand at the moment of my block.

Thanks.

A poor son of Adam (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already declined an unblock request of yours, so I will leave it to another admin to assess your unblock. You should format your request in an {{unblock}} template. PhilKnight (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

A poor son of Adam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I would like to take Wikipedia:Standard offer as suggested. Am I eligible? I have understood clearly the rules regarding using multiple accounts no matter what the reason or intent. I believe I should be unbanned because I was an active contributor and would like to continue contributing to the best of my abilities. I have access to books (physically and in PDF format) that are usually hard to find which are gems when it comes to the topic I edit in - Circassians. Before my block due to usage of multiple accounts, I was an active contributer making use of these sources, and I wish to continue to do so. I believe it will be of benefit to the project. I thank @Super Dromaeosaurus for reminding me that the required time has passed. After my block, I decided to take my time, and during this period I have researched so much more and gained more knowledge especially about the medieval period and the 1800s. I will admit that as a result of this I've asked some of my friends to make edits fixing some things (that either I myself previously got wrong, or someone else), but I have not attempted to edit Wikipedia myself using any of my accounts. I don't know if this is a problem, but I thought you should know just in case. I am aware that I was blocked and this block served the purpose of teaching me to be more careful and made me understand what exactly I had done wrong - something I did not fully understand at the moment of my block. Thanks. A poor son of Adam (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not eligible due to Confirmed logged-out editing while blocked. You have to go six months with zero edits. That's zero edits with this account. Zero edits with your other account. Zero edits while not signed in to your account. The soonest you could apply, assuming you make zero edits between now and then, would be 2023-07-24. At that point, you'll need to address your continued violation of WP:SOCK even after your initial block. Yamla (talk) 18:02, 24 January 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.

A poor son of Adam (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Crimean–Circassian War (1569)

Hello, A poor son of Adam. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Crimean–Circassian War (1569), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Crimean–Circassian War (1616–1640)

Hello, A poor son of Adam. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Crimean–Circassian War (1616–1640), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Crimean–Circassian War (1569)

Hello, A poor son of Adam. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Crimean–Circassian War".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Crimean–Circassian War (1616–1640)

Hello, A poor son of Adam. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Crimean–Circassian War".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6 months have passed again

Hello, I again remind you that six months have passed since your last unblocking request. You're finally elligible for the Wikipedia:Standard offer and this time there shouldn't be any problems. Understandably though you might be quite upset with how you've been treated so far. It's your choice whether you try again or not but I'm pretty sure this time it will work. And I will help you throughout the process if you decide to try again. Pinging your other account Ea-Nasir to ensure this message reaches you. Wish you the best of luck. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Thanks for your continual support! However, I currently have no intention of returning to this place anytime soon. If anything changes, I'd let you know. Honestly leaving enwiki has been a blessing for me. I'm having the time of my life. A poor son of Adam (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]