User talk:Quirk1

Welcome!

Hello, Quirk1!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page usage

Let me make this clear: stop bothering me on my talk page about the same topic. I've asked you multiple times. There is already a discussion at the appropriate article talk page where you persist in pushing the same POV over and over again despite the evidence against it. Any further attempts to bother me on my talk page about this topic will be reverted with no explanation. R Prazeres (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence are you talking about? You mean ibn alathir's claim that was debunked by Saladin's grandchildren and the Ayyubid kings? I'm only talking with you because wikipedia rules tell me i should discuss this with you the reverter of the edit. you wont reply on the talk page but you do reply here 22:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, I'm PigeonChickenFish. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Soheila, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jessicapierce. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, BRICS, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to BRICS, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Jessicapierce (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Rawadid dynasty, 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) 15:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rawadid dynasty. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rawadid dynasty. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you claimed "editors," but I see no one disagreeing besides you, I tried to discuss this with you, but you deleted my question from your talk page. so let's talk about it here, why did you revert my edit brother? I don't believe I was edit warring because the edits were not the same exact thing over and over again, but if I am edit warring then you must be too? Quirk1 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors" is not meant to take literally. And judging by your message, you still haven't read my edit summaries. What does my latest edit summary in the article say? HistoryofIran (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so do you want to go discuss it there with me? Quirk1 (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I created a section in the talk page and pinged you. Discussing on a talk page of the article allows other users to participate as well. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked before I got the chance to read or give my pov? even though I stopped editing Quirk1 (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Specifically, due to longstanding competence issues (possibly as a result of a language barrier) with little sign of improvement. In order to get your editing privileges restored, you'll need to demonstrate to the reviewing admin a nominal grasp of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, with an emphasis on reliable sources (and avoiding synthesis ) as well as clear communication). Also, this is an aside only, but I noticed you doing it consistently: Kurdish, like Arabic always in uppercase (so no lowercase kurds alongside Arabs in uppercase). Again, not a major thing, but in light of the general direction of your editing, it's a bad looks. Don't overfixate on that, though (it's in small text for a reason). Thank you.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.

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).

Quirk1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello administration, may I know the specific reason in which I got blocked so I can improve? Quirk1 (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The reason is given higher up on this page. Please do not abuse the unblock template; the template is to be used only if you are contesting your block. You should read WP:GAB prior to doing so. Yamla (talk) 11:20, 3 November 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.

@Yamla: I appreciate the capitlization advice from @El C:. also I already read that reason which is why I asked for a specific reason. what disruptive editing resulted in my block? I realize @HistoryofIran: threatened to report me if I did not revert an edit in which I added a harvard source for the timeline start of the Rawadid dynasty instead of no source, my summary said "it could be 955 but is there a source?" showing that I am accepting any source. the editor themself did not revert the edit till now. I am looking to improve and fix any mistakes if you could specifically point any --Quirk1 (talk) 11:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me? I'm not the blocking admin. --Yamla (talk) 12:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking admin has not responded Quirk1 (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: help Quirk1 (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing I can do for you. Don't ping me again. You are free to make an unblock request; WP:GAB explains how to do so. --Yamla (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the editor did edit the article, but they did not revert the edit in which they threatened me for, which I believe is one of the reasons that prove my innocence Quirk1 (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

idk if you saw this response, but is there any chance you could ask the blocking admin or mention him? @Yamla: Quirk1 (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2024 (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).

Quirk1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

hello administration. blocking admin hasn't told me what exact reason got me blocked. I asked an admin for help on my talk page and they said there's nothing they could do about it and that I am free to make an unblock request. the editor did revert another edit, but they did not revert the edit in which they threatened me for, which I believe is one of the reasons that prove my innocence Quirk1 (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were given a very clear reason for the block, seen in the block notice. Please review it carefully and speak to that specifically. 331dot (talk) 19:12, 4 November 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.

I am trying to identify what edit/s exactly got me blocked for disruptive editing so I can improve and address the subject/matter, I would appreciate your help @331dot: Quirk1 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello? @331dot: Quirk1 (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hey bro @El C:, you're the only admin that knows what edit/s/exact reason that got me banned. Quirk1 (talk)

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).

Quirk1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

hello, I am still trying to know what edit/s got me blocked, could you please help Quirk1 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2024 (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. asilvering (talk) 04:28, 7 November 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.

If you ping me or email me again, you will lose access to both. For that matter, don't ping anyone else, either. You are either being deliberately disruptive or demonstrating the WP:CIR issues that lead to your block. I will not respond further. --Yamla (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

when have I emailed you? Quirk1 (talk)

Sorry, I am not available for private correspondence at this time. My block notice, I feel, is clear enough as concurring with and as a summary of the ANI report you were informed about, thus writing above: I was blocked before I got the chance to read or give my pov?. To that: no, you don't get a right to reply at a report, especially when it involves longstanding issues of ethno-national disruption where you are either being purposefully obtuse or lacking sufficient competence (which of these I can't tell, but it doesn't really matter). And so I feel like you are doing the same thing here with these unblock requests. You were informed of WP:GAB, but I have low confidence that you've reviewed it closely. Also, another admin said in that report (a report that if anything I found overly comprehensive) that they would have done the same thing as myself in blocking you (diff). El_C 02:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the response @El C:. I am sorry if I have made mistakes as every human is prone, I will look forward into making improvements with your help. can you provide a specific example that got me blocked? I am not here to harm wikipedia, I am here to learn from any mistake I make. I will start to take rule orders more seriously. regards Quirk1 (talk)

Sorry, I have nothing further to add to my above statement, including such detail. Beyond perhaps emphasizing that you are expected to review the complaint outlined in the ANI report as well as review the WP:GAB guideline closely. And after doing that, reply in a manner that reflects the evidence, doing so in the context of a deeper understanding of the broader policies and guidelines (i.e. not merely as one with a single purpose only). El_C 03:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok Quirk1 (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page and email access revoked: bigotry will not be tolerated

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

El_C 05:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]