User talk:Tluadg

Hello you say that larachays and balkars didn’t help the russian empire can explain this to me

May 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Russo-Circassian War. 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. Air on White (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

im not spamming, I’m just to trying to provide as much evidence from all the official sources that there exists to come to an historically proved point on how much really the casualties of the Russians soldiers in the Russo-Circassian war are. Even tho it’s very much sources, but all of them combine with eachother. The Russians casualties are claimed to be 77,000 in combat from 1801-1864, but other sources claim that these numbers are not quite correct and that they don’t include the ones who died out of wounds or Illness. And all the sources that I provided are official sources from people who witness the Russo-Circassian war personally. All the sources that I provided claim that the Russian army lost up to 20,000-30,000 soldiers yearly in Caucasus, coming from adventurer’s from Russian and Circassian side. How can these sources be invalid? By Denying the sources you deny the true history. Tluadg (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue the discussion at the article talk page because most people are unaware of your user talk page. The WP:SYNTH policy bans users from combining information from multiple sources to create original conclusions, even if all the sources are individually reliable. WP:RS dictates that recent scholarly sources should be used where possible and that primary and old sources are less reliable. Air on White (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Data that does not take into account the number of deaths from diseases or wounds gives data of 92 thousand. The source about 77 thousand includes the sick or wounded [1] Dushnilkin (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please stop making personal attacks in edit summaries as you did in [2]. Air on White (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anzor Astemirov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caucasian Front. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Siege of Maghas has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Siege of Maghas. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of the Mikhailovsky fortification moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Siege of the Mikhailovsky fortification. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar and it is a poor translation. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Khasauka moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Battle of Khasauka. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar and it is a poor translation. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Insurgency in Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Insurgency in Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – United Vilayat of Kabarda, Balkaria and Karachay. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at United Vilayat of Kabarda, Balkaria and Karachay. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 15:58, 27 June 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).

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

Request reason:

I created this account, because when I put up a draft article, my Wikipedia page expanded to the pc version and it‘s really uncomfortable for a phone user. I tried to find a way to make it a mobile version again, but I didn’t find any way. That’s why I created a second account to edit in an mobile version again. And when I’m trying to create an article, I create in on my other account, so it don’t become pc version on this account

Decline reason:

This makes no sense at all. There's no reason to maintain two separate accounts for two separate devices. Yamla (talk) 17:31, 27 June 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

@Yamla no, you understood it wrong. I got only one phone and when I created my first artical on the @malik.kbr account my Wikipedia page became expanded out like on a computer, everything is very small and I have to zoom in on my phone to see what’s a certain article is talking about and when I try to edit everything is uncomfortable to do. Then I created a new account @Tluadg and everything was normal again, everything is normal size and it’s a mobile version again like it was before and now for example when I created the article about battle of Khasauka I edited everything on this account, but requested for the drafts on the other, because if I request on this account, my Wikipedia will expand again like on an Computer. Hope for your understanding.

Decline reason:

Taking into account the discussion below, I think your best bet is to take the standard offer and re-apply in 6 months time with no more socking. PhilKnight (talk) 18:21, 4 July 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.

That still doesn't make any sense. You used the Malik account five hours ago to submit Battle of Khasauka, and then edited it from this account 43 minutes later. Drmies (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies how doesn’t it make sense? I just told why I did that. When I submit a draft the Wikipedia page changes to the expanded and uncomfortable computer like version on my phone. On my @malik.kbr account I cannot change the expanded version, that’s why I created a new account where everything is normal and where I can edit normally, without difficulties. Basically, I edit everything on this account, but when I submit an article I do it on the other account, because I don’t want this account to get expanded too. I don’t even understand why I got blocked. I didn’t do anything wrong and it’s allowed to have two accounts. I didn’t use the accounts to argue in an debate or anything, I didn’t abusevly used it. I only use the @malik.kbr account to submit a draft. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Why did you really block me?
- You get one unblock request at a time, so I removed that formatting. Why did I block you? Because you were running two accounts at the same time to edit, write, and submit material that clearly is contentious. I haven't yet checked to see whether your two accounts are tag-teaming in any edit wars, but I wouldn't be surprised, and using one account to write a draft and another to submit it, as you did with Draft:Battle of Khasauka, that's pretty clearly a violation of the draft process. Now this whole "expanding" thing sounds weird to me, but even if it were true, it's hard to believe. I mean, you say you create the drafts with the other account? But Draft:Battle of Khasauka, Insurgency in Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia, Battle of Baksan, and Draft:Siege of the Mikhailovsky fortification were created with this account. Sure, it's allowed to have two accounts--the rules are outlined in WP:SOCKLEGIT, and none of those apply here, as far as I can tell, and you certainly didn't disclose that the two were linked (see the section "Alternative account notification" in the page I just linked). Drmies (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can u say that I’m lying? How about you submit a draft for review on your phone before bringing out false accusations. Google about this problem on the internet, I saw a Reddit page talking about the same problem. I do everything on this account with other I only submit it. Could you tell me the exact violation that I broke? Because if I did break violation, I’m sorry I didn’t mean to do it, I’m still new to Wikipedia and I don’t know every violation. I didn’t create this account for some stupid reasons or to abuse it in a bad way. I just want to help Wikipedia get more relible. Why am I getting punished so harsh I don’t understand. And am I going to be banned forever? Tluadg (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - The specific policy you violated is WP:SOCK. I'm quite concerned that you don't know this already. It was linked above. Take the time to read and thoroughly understand the policy. --Yamla (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - You keep talking about this "expanding", but I don't care, that's not the issue. You are lying about submitting drafts and articles from your other account; I listed the articles/drafts you submitted from this account. I already told you which rule you violated. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Am I going to be banned now forever? I didn’t know that it was not allowed. I didn’t do it on purpose, I won’t do it again. If something like that happens again bann me forever. It’s lesson learned, SORRY. What do I have to do to get unbanned? Tluadg (talk) 06:40, 29 June 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).

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

Request reason:

Free me bruh. I ain’t even do nothing. Y’all just some haters. I get even blamed to be a sockpuppet account of some random dude and I can’t even defend myself. I understood my mistake bruh, I didn’t do it on purpose. To the moderators that don’t hate, free me pls:( Tluadg (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you don't think that you did anything wrong, are using this page for personal attacks, and have rejected the pathway to being unblocked given to you, I am declining your request and removing access to this page to prevent more time wasting. If you have a change of heart, you may use WP:UTRS for further appeals. 331dot (talk) 08:04, 6 August 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.

Venting your anger is a surefire way to have an unblock request denied. And since you say "I ain't even do nothing. Y'all just some haters," which indicates that you don't believe you did anything wrong, it would be extremely surprising if an admin unblocked you at this point. If anything, a third non-constructive unblock request could possibly end up with your talk page access being revoke, which will not help your case. Accepting PhilKnight's suggestion to take WP:OFFER is probably your best path to editing again. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Baksan moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Battle of Baksan. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it is a poor translation. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Insurgency in Kabardino-Balkaria (September 16)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by OhHaiMark was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Insurgency in Kabardino-Balkaria and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

OhHaiMark (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tluadg! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! OhHaiMark (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]