User talk:Sweetkind5

Turkmenians

Turkmenistanis and Turkmen are sourced. Your addition requires a source as well. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue, especially because there was an edit-war weeks ago between if it was Turkmenistanis or Turkmen. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That you should click that link to see why "the obvious" and "the most logical" is also sourced. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources indicate how to create a demonym, not sources that prove that Turkmenian is the correct demonym. In fact, If I search "Turkmenian" in Google I don't get results that it is a demonym, I get results of animals[1], like the Turkmenian kulan, the Turkmenian fox, the Turkmenian mandrake. But not as a demonym, which "is a word that identifies a group of people". (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In plural, it still pretty much the same[2]. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetkind5, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Sweetkind5! 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 MrClog (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Vugar Gashimov

Since all English language sources use the transliteration Vugar Gashimov, that's what the English language wikipedia will use too per WP:COMMONNAME. Quale (talk) 08:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to List of European countries by minimum wage, 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. Materialscientist (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, did not appear constructive and has 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.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe, did not appear constructive and has 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.

EDIT WARRING NOTICE - List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CMD (talk) 09:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the noticeboard. On the article talk page, it looks like you are promising to continue warring indefinitely. If you will agree to stop warring, you could file an unblock request and someone will take a look at it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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.

Jr8825 • Talk 12:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - have just become aware of this ruling myself, so thought it worth noting that it means the one revert rule applies on Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. I didn't realise this at the time of the above discussion, so my apologies. Have started a discussion to try to gain consensus either way on the talk page. Thanks. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I noticed that in this edit to Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict, 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. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 12:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Sweetkind5 :) I noticed you've reverted the above edit reinstating this content, with the edit summary "The explanation for my first edit pertains to all my other edits, too. How can I make it more clear?". The edit summary on your first edit was "There's no proxy war going on in the Balkans and Caucasus.". There are verifiable references for statement on the on the page like "Iran has also backed Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, fearing an Iranian Azerbaijani breakaway state." from sources like Foreign Affairs. Are you able to provide a verifiable source for for the claim in your edit summary please? (CC:User:I dream of horses) Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Dreamer. The thing is, there's actually no way to verify that Iran backed Armenia. Iran officially stayed neutral durong the Karabakh war and the Supreme Leader Khamenei even stated that Azerbaijan must liberate its occupied lands. There are no reliable sources to confirm that Saudi Arabia and Iran are engaged in a proxy conflict in the Caucasus. Sweetkind5 (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sweetkind5 reported by User:Jonathan Deamer (Result: ). Thank you. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CMD (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning before block

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Lourdes 11:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always open for discussion. The problem is, I have only seen one comment by only one use in my talk page regarding the Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. Sweetkind5 (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And there's no discussion in the article's talk page either. Sweetkind5 (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Lourdes 12:22, 28 January 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).

Sweetkind5 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I WAS NOT EDIT WARRING! The use named Chumpdavis (shortened as CMD) constantly kept reversing my edits by accusing me of not giving a reason to do so. I have stated numerous times that the explanations WERE given in the edit history. He also wrongly accused me of not discussing the issue. But I did! You guys need to check my talk page to see for yourselve. CMD, on the other hand, did NOT. Not a single comment on the disscussion page. The block administrators are really biased in who and how they block users. This needs to stop.

Sweetkind5 (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Considering yourself being correct with your edits is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that their edits are correct. If you thought you were giving explanations in edit summaries, your edit history with Russia–Turkey proxy conflict clearly indicates that you weren't except for your first edit. You clearly edit warred, and since you don't think you were, there are no grounds to lift the block. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 28 January 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.

Can you prove that I edit-warred in the Russia-Turkey proxy conflict article? As far as I know, I just reversed a set of edits by a user (only once!). This cannot be considered edit-warring. Sweetkind5 (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of sockpuppetry block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sweetkind5. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]