User talk:Khorler

March 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page Kirkuk Massacre of 1924, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is the teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Diannaa, I'm not tech savvy and new to Wikipedia as well, but your feedback is valuable, thank your for your guidance.

March 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your (second) personal attack. If you do it again, you will be reported to WP:ANI. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

you are attacking me and my existence here "don't accuse me of nonsense, Kurds didnt exist back then", but I'm the one to be blamed. if you want you can report me.

Neither did the Americans or French, if you think I am "attacking your existence", how about you report that to an admin then? Seems like pretty serious accusation. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Moskerhus per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moskerhus. 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 ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:08, 10 April 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Wow!!! I'm really shocked to see this, I have nothing to do with the user you have mentioned, based on what you decided that I have done something wrong? based on what you blocked me???????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khorler (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open request at a time please. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:33, 12 April 2021 (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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

dear Callanecc, the mentioned user has nothing to do with me and I'm really surprised and I'm nor responsible for his actions, I add material and if people remove it or someone else reinstates it then why should I blamed for it?.. And I'm really surprised I have been blocked based on an supposition by LouisAragon:""There's a recent surge in pro-Kurdish irredentist editing on Wikipedia, carefully covered and backed by these two accounts. On the Ziryab article, when User "Khorler" was reverted, User"Moskerhus" reinstated almost every source 4 days later, word for word verbatim. Same goes for the Medes article, where "Moskerhus" reinstated content originally added by "Khorler". and "Coupled with the editorial pattern, I don't think there's any way for this to be a coincidence" .. 1- for God's sake LouisAragon's comment is an outright baseless accusation, adding Kurdish articles or information about Kurds to Wikipedia by me is pro-Kurdish?!! I have only added sourced and reliable data is this going against Wikipedia's polices? what about his baseless accusation, isn't anti-Kurdish? . 2- why I should be banned for another user's "Moskerhus"'s actions who has zero connection with me?. I kindly ask for a revert on your decision, I'm here to contribute to Wikipedia not to attack people or share lies and false information. Thanks. Khorler (talk) 1:18 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

I'm willing to give a second chance at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I've no objection to an unblock if you're comfortable that it's not socking or meatpuppetry. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:57, 13 April 2021 (UTC)}}[reply]
Ok, I've gone ahead and unblocked, as I don't think the sockpuppetry evidence is conclusive. That having been said, prior warnings against personal attacks remain valid; please remember to comment on content, not contributors or you may lose editing privileges again. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

Your edit to Ferdinand Hennerbichler has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please let me know what part was not constructive when all I mentioned was baed on recent scholarship and by scholars who are regarded as authorities on the subject? thank you.