User talk:Meambokhe

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

FDW777 (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello, I'm SunDawn. I noticed that in this edit to Turkish War of Independence, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SunDawn (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was double repetitions because of i use mobile. İ already fixed it. Meambokhe (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Greek War of Independence. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 15:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

İt's same with Turkish İndependence War topic nowadays. :) İf here is propaganda page block my account. Meambokhe (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 16:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much then. Meambokhe (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:18, 5 May 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).

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

Request reason:

Any editors here ? İt's been awhile since i blocked. İ visited again i think when i find time i will learn more about Wikipedia to help articles. Have good day. Meambokhe (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:02, 5 June 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.

İt seems like i wasn't wrong about here is a blog of kiddos which play in sand and assume itself a shit. Bye bye Meambokhe (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know about Wikipedia so much nobody warn me before blocking. Meambokhe (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:42, 5 May 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.

Already declined, just for the record: You can't make edits like Special:Diff/1021417565, repeatedly use policy-referring edit summaries like "Npov" for almost a year, then ignore a big orange-red warning banner with the text "This page is intended for reports of usernames that are blatant and serious violations of the username policy requiring an immediate block. Reports will be assessed in accordance with the username policy, the UAA instructions and the following bullet points. Please ensure you are familiar with the assessment criteria before making a report.", repeat the process two times (you had been warned about edit warring in the past) and claim there was a need to warn you before blocking. If you genuinely required yet another warning to notice that this is disruptive, the block is already justified by that alone. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe i didn't notice it. Did you write that "here is not for that" ? I visit Wikipedia one year but that doesn't mean I visit it everyday. I didn't know that Wikipedia is web blog of a group. Meambokhe (talk) 20:02, 5 May 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).

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

Request reason:

.Meambokhe (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

ToBeFree is correct; you'll need to directly address the reasons you are blocked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:16, 12 June 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.

Hi Meambokhe, I've had a look at the whole situation again.

You had been edit warring at Seljuk Empire ([1] [2] [3] [4]). You have been warned about this on 12 October 2020; the warning is currently displayed at the top of this page here. It was the first message you had received on Wikipedia.
You went into full personal confrontation mode at Talk:Colchis, citing the "Wikipedia is not a forum" policy while throwing accusations of vandalism and history-related insults around (diff).
You joined a heated conflict against "tendentious writings" at Turkish War of Independence, causing the page to be fully protected for a week (diff, protection).
You continued to fuel the fire by describing the article as an "anachronistic and provocative" "programda [propaganda?] page" against already-expected opposition (diff, opposition). The page ended up being extended-confirmed protected for three months to prevent further disruption, likely including from you (result).
You replaced the map at Oghuz languages (diff) immediately after this replacement had been reverted (diff). So I assume that you saw the change, saw opposition to the change, and reacted by reinstating the reverted change, instead of discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Expectably, your revert was reverted again immediately afterwards (diff), indicating that you shouldn't have joined this conflict in the first place.
You joined yet another conflict at Armenian national liberation movement, by introducing unsourced controversial wording (diff), seeing it being reverted (diff), re-instating the reverted content with a broken citation template (diff), seeing it being reverted again (diff), re-instating the reverted content with a fixed citation template (diff), expectably resulting in yet another revert (diff). It is unclear if you genuinely believed that the final edit would be accepted: Either you didn't pay the necessary attention to others' concerns, or you overrode them intentionally. Both scenarios are problematic.
You edit warred at Greek War of Independence, calling others' concerned reverts "vandalism", thus accusing them of intentionally damaging the encyclopedia: [5] [6] [7] [8]
You deleted an on-topic discussion at Talk:Turkish War of Independence (diff), were reverted immediately with an accurate explanative edit summary (diff), edited your user talk page more than 30 minutes after the revert ([9], [10]) and then continued to remove on-topic discussions (diff). It is possible that you did not notice Praxidicae's revert, but you have certainly received a revert notification during your user talk page edits, and paying attention to such notifications would have informed you about the issue. Alternatively, it is possible that you had seen Praxidicae's concern and removed further discussions anyway, which would then be yet another case of edit warring.
You accused others of "deleting sourced information just [because] [they] don't like [the information] personally", and you asked them to "stop talking about imaginary things" (diff), which is incivil and a destructive way to approach a content-related conversation.
You reported buidhe, one of your direct discussion opponents at Armenian national liberation movement ([11] [12] [13]) and participant in the conflict at Turkish War of Independence ([14]), on administrative noticeboards: for their username, for their username again, for their username yet another time, and finally for vandalism.

The "vandalism" report was how I noticed your disruptive behavior, and now we're here. Any unblock request should properly address all these issues. Complimenting the "nice moderators" misses the point and is unconvincing. You have been using Wikipedia as a battleground, and the block currently seems to prevent damage to the project.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Big sort of time passed after my blocking. İ will not behave same and resume my mistakes again therefore i want unblocking my account. Have a good dayMeambokhe (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It has been a little while, and another chance may be possible here, but you need to specifically speak to what was wrong with your approach to editing and your edits themselves, and tell us what you will do differently. This request does not do that, so I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2024 (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.

Unblocking request

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).

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

Request reason:

İ repeated to edit pages after warnings by other users according to rules in past and i blocked because of this i accept i was wrong i want to come back wikipedia to use this platform according to rules. Have good day. Meambokhe (talk) 4:12 pm, 29 January 2024, Monday (14 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Please describe concisely and clearly yet thoroughly how your edits merited a block and what you would do different. Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2024 (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.

Unblock discussion

Well, let's start with what you should do to resolve a WP:content dispute. Please tell us i your own words. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess ToBeFree left a detailed list. Frankly, I'm skeptical of your ability to collaborate in the building of this encyclopedia. My root cause analysis indicates you are not. Please be concise and clear but thorough. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]