User talk:SonofJacob
SonofJacob, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]Hi SonofJacob! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC) |
Nomination of Vrats dasht for deletion
[edit]A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vrats dasht, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vrats dasht until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
[edit]Please stop your disruptive editing.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Zakarid Armenia, you may be blocked from editing. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Chechil 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. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello Kevo, it is interesting enough how I'm being warned from you about the whole "edit war". Didn't we already use the talk page? from what I remember, you left my arguments on seen. SonofJacob (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Important Notice
[edit]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.
Liz Read! Talk! 19:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Vrats dasht. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 12:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Only warning about personal attacks
[edit]You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. El_C 13:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: was this attack on Wikipedia? If it was, please can you provide a diff link to the relevant edit, as this user seems to be in denial of this personal attack over at this discussion. - Falcon talk 18:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Speedcuber1: [1][2] El_C 18:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: I wouldn't call these personal attacks. They are simply asking another editor to stop. - Falcon talk 19:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Speedcuber1: I deem the "corrupting + [smiley face]" exclamation as well as accusing an editor in good standing of "vandalizing" to be attacks. You're free to disagree, but it's a stance I am prepared to enforce with sanctions, if need be. El_C 19:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: Sorry if you feel what they said was a personal attack. I disagreed because I'm not aware of how it could of been a personal attack. Since you have backed yourself up, I agree with you, as I think you know more about this than me. Speedcuber1 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Speedcuber1: I deem the "corrupting + [smiley face]" exclamation as well as accusing an editor in good standing of "vandalizing" to be attacks. You're free to disagree, but it's a stance I am prepared to enforce with sanctions, if need be. El_C 19:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: I wouldn't call these personal attacks. They are simply asking another editor to stop. - Falcon talk 19:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Speedcuber1: [1][2] El_C 18:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I am deeply sorry if I get caught up by my emotions for a bit sometimes, although it may sometimes happen I do not like being accused of pushing a nationalistic agenda because it is not true. I am on the wikipedia to fight bad-faith lies. But since I am educated mostly on the Georgian-related topics and work on the following, people view me as some kind of "Nationalist". SonofJacob (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion
[edit]There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Falcon talk 18:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
May I know which issue exactly? SonofJacob (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@SonofJacob: The start of the discussion can be seen here. As you have already commented on the discussion I'm sure you know what the issue is now. However feel free to use this link to get to the discussion whenever you want, for example if you want to make a comment. - Falcon talk 18:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SonofJacob, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
- Kevo327 (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no problem having sockpuppet investigation applied to me :D SonofJacob (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
September 2021
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)It has been found that you have been using one or more accounts abusively, have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny, or have recruited friends, family or coworkers who share your point of view to support you (see the meatpuppet policy for more information). Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publicly and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.
Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
SonofJacob (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here Yamla (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)}}
. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)Decline reason:
Declined unread, WP:WALLOFTEXT. Yamla (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
SonofJacob (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am now fully aware of the Wikipedia policy and never make such mistakes. Please consider unbanning me.SonofJacob (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
SonofJacob (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The block I've gotten out of lack of my knowledge has taught me what to do and what NOT to do. So I will make productive contributions in the future and stay out of upcoming edit-warring situations. Best regards. SonofJacob (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please describe the productive contributions you wish to make, and tell how you will handle future editing disputes instead of edit warring. This will help to demonstrate the knowledge you have now attained. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
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, thanks for responding.
SonofJacob (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I will avoid edit warring at all times and use talk pages instead, but if we fail to reach consensus I'll seek out for RfC. And majority of the time I'll make productive contributions regarding the history of Caucasus region and Anatolia (despite this I'll also focus on including information about specific traditional foods throughout the world.)SonofJacob (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
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.
SonofJacob (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, I have come back from 10 months of inactiveness. Now that I came back I wanna start editing again. also, I realize all my mistakes and it is no longer necessary for me to be blocked because: :· I will no longer make personal attacks on other people. :· I will never intend to get into meatpuppetry (even though I unintentionally did in the past not knowing it was against Wikipedia policy.) :· Will no longer tendentiously edit and avoid having edit wars and from now on start discussing in talk pages. SonofJacob (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Accept reason:
The blocking administrator, Callanecc, has not edited at all for several months, and in recent years has edited very irregularly, with several long gaps between edits, so it may take a very long time to get any response from them. You have already waited a long time, and I don't think it's fair to let you keep on waiting, so I am dealing with this. I am willing to allow you another chance, in the hope that you will keep to your undertaking to avoid the same kinds of problems as before. However, please bear in mind that I am very much giving you the benefit of the doubt, as, like Deepfriedokra, I feel some misgivings. I hope your editing in future will be fine, and unblocking you will prove to have been the right thing to do, but if not, you are likely to be blocked again, with much less likelihood of being unblocked. JBW (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
You have posted your latest unblock request inside an earlier declined unblock request. This can cause confusion, making it difficult to see who wrote what and when, so I'm moving your layest unblock request out of the previous decline that it was embedded in. JBW (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Zabaha (October 21)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Zabaha and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Zabaha, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Concern regarding Draft:Zabaha
[edit]Hello, SonofJacob. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Zabaha, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
unblock discussion
[edit]@Callanecc: What do you think? Covers all the basics, but I feel a sense of disquietude. Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- disquietude in what sense sir?
- Glad to hear back from you. SonofJacob (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- a vague sense -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Understandable. Will I hear back from mr.callanecc soon? I hope they respond. SonofJacob (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Note left on blocking admin's talk page. Recuse. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- Will we hear back from him soon? there's been no answer and I think I'm waiting for a whole month. Is there any way to get me unbanned by tagging other admins? SonofJacob (talk) SonofJacob (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)