User talk:Sappo II

Sappo II, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sappo II! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft talk:Assyrians in Belgium a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Cabayi (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of ܫܲܪܝܼܪܘܼܬܵܐ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) 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 is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, 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. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:46, 19 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked because I was suspected of being a socket account. I only have 1 account though and it is this account. Can't they just verify my IP? Sappo II (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No, and you know this already. You are using a proxy. Yamla (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2019 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I already explained why it happened. Why were my backed up edits removed without a reasonable explanation by "thehistoryofiran"? The twentiest ref: "It was around 200 CE that Abgar IX adopted Christianity, thus enabling Edessa to become the first Christian Assyrian state in history whose ruler was officially and openly a Christian." I literally used information from a ref. and someone undid all my edits probably for Assyrophobic reasons. Sappo II (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2019 (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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2019 (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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

That sounds reasonable. Well, I was banned for using a proxy. I understand that it's forbidden to use a proxy and I gave a reason why I did it. I will not do it anymore in the future. I don't believe the fact that I tried to use a proxy will damage or disrupt Wikipedia, definitely not if I won't be trying to use it anymore. Hopefully my account will be unblocked. Thanks in advance. Sappo II (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with the revocation of your access to this page, for the reasons given below. MER-C 11:24, 20 October 2019 (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.

@Sappo II: In none of your appeals do you respond to the original blocking reason, which is that you also used the account ܫܲܪܝܼܪܘܼܬܵܐ in order to edit Osroene. Can you respond to that? ST47 (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) with ST47 - How would you explain that this and the other account edited the same article on the same day, making the same edit? This isn't about you using a proxy, it's about you abusing multiple accounts. SQL ^{Query me!} 23:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you altered your declined unblock request in an attempt to mislead us about why I declined your unblock request. As such, and given your continued pointless unblock requests, I have revoked your talk page access. If your current unblock request is declined, this leaves you with WP:UTRS. I strongly suggest you read WP:GAB before appealing there. --Yamla (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #27219 was submitted on Oct 21, 2019 16:29:18. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Assyrians in Belgium has been accepted

Assyrians in Belgium, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]