User talk:Sira Aspera

August 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) 18:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block account

@Bbb23 I notice you blocked my account for "multiple account abuse". This is my first and only account here and if there is an objective way of verifying it it will be verified. I would like it done quickly. If you don't like the way I contribute to Wikipedia it's a different problem we can discuss. Thank you. Sira Aspera (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I notice blocked my account for "multiple account abuse". This is my first and only account here and if there is an objective way of verifying it it will be verified. I would like it done quickly. Thank you.Sira Aspera (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC) Sira Aspera (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Either you are using multiple accounts, or this is meat puppetry. Either way, the result is the same. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 20 August 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.

@331dot It is simply not reality, but a pure belief that I don't know even know how it was born.Sira Aspera (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked on August 1, 2022, at tr.wiki for socking by Superyetkin. Your first account, MuhammetFurkan1, was blocked on April 23, 2022, at tr.wiki for socking by Elmacenderesi (also a CheckUser). I'm not sure if there are other accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23Too bad that MuhammetFurkan1 Is not a my accounts or people I know. I didn't even notice the block on tr because I hardly ever visit wiki in that language. Simply, the Turkish pages related to my interests are BAD and full of untruths, as anyone with a bit of knowledge on the subject can tell you, but apparently the improvements there are not appreciated. Apparently, the answer is to denounce people with absurd charges and prevent them from defending themselves instead of, I don't know, contact them. So does it work like this? Did this suspicion / belief come to you and I am out without even being able to defend myself or prove that you are wrong? It doesn't seem fair to me.Sira Aspera (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for account abuse. In particular, as a sock of MuhammetFurkan1. This is simply not true. I have a single account, this one, and I contribute on wikis in multiple languages, but this is not a crime. I pointed this out, inviting you to verify it objectively, and I was told, quite rudely, that if this was the case then I was acting as a different natural person but in league with the first account. All without proof, because being the false accusation there cannot be any, except that we both have an interest in Ottoman history. The only possible indirect contact with this account is having reverted some unsuitable changes and the latest version that seemed ok to me was his. I suspect that I simply made some changes that I didn't like and it was decided to freeze completely, not to mention the specific problem even though I had offered to do so. Apparently, the reason for the block is that I made a couple of edits on Turkish wikipedia, where the pages on the Ottoman dynasty are in a bad state and full of bogus information, as anyone with knowledge on the subject can confirm, and a touchy user decided that instead of talking to me he had to report me for "account abuse" and "vandalism", leave me without the possibility of defending myself and let me also be targeted by en wiki, that blocked me without asking for any proof or anything but on principle. All without proof, verify or without warning for heard my version. Honestly, I am very disappointed that I was not only falsely accused, but also nearly unable to defend myself although apparently the burden of proof lies with me, accused of absurd things and conspiracies and cut off simply because two editors were interested in the same subject.Sira Aspera (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Based on CheckUser evidence, you are unrelated to MuhammetFurkan1 (although they have socked). I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience.-Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Thank you. I'm happy this inconvenience is end. Is it possible to get the unlock also on wiki tr? I don't really care as en wiki, but it bothers me that I got blocked for a fake reason by a segnalation by random user who didn't like my contributions. Sira Aspera (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to make an unblock request at tr.wiki. I have no authority there.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gazanfer Agha

you reverted my edit – could you explain your reason(s):

I changed “dead on” to symbol “†“; although “dead on” is grammatically correct, we should use “died on” in English; nevertheless, “died on” is not encyclopaedical style, the symbol “†“ should be used instead;

I added an Infobox officeholder expecting that it would have been “filled” automatically from its Wikidata item; if not, then it would have been “filled” manually; “filling” from the Wikidata item is not instant, it takes some time; however, we did not know whether it would have been “filled” automatically or manually since you revert my edit;

pls explain and/or consider reverting your revert Jan Hejkrlík (talk) 05:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why did you revert my edit to the October 15 Coalition article? IgnacyPL (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Ibrahim I

So why is there a number added to the article "Sultan Ahmed I"? IgnacyPL (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because exist an Ahmed II and an Ahmed III. There is NO Ibrahim II. Sira Aspera (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]