User talk:Viceskeeni2

Welcome, Viceskeeni2!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Viceskeeni2! I'm I dream of horses, and I've been assigned as your mentor. About half of new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor chosen randomly from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Whole Azerbaijan. 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. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Karabakh genocide

Hello, Viceskeeni2,

Thank you for creating Karabakh genocide.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Unlike Rwandan genocide, not a single one of the references used in this article has "Karabakh genocide" in its title. If you are going to use a term like genocide, you need to have very high quality sources that directly refer to "Karabakh genocide". thanks.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Aszx5000 (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aszx5000: The term "Karabakh genocide" isn't really used, it's rather referred to as the "Tragedy of Karabakh" or "Khojaly genocide" (which technically only refers to the massacre in Khojaly but still is sometimes used for all the mass killings that happened in Karabakh). However, the events from 1988-1994 against Azerbaijani civilians can be considered a genocide just like the Bosnian genocide is, although mostly it's only referred to as "Srebrenica genocide". Another name that could be used for the article is maybe "Genocide of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh" because although the term "Karabakh genocide" isn't used, the events that happened are still referred to as a genocide. And another question I have is: How does this article get to the public? For example, when I search up "Khojaly massacre" the first thing to appear is the wikipedia article, however when I search up "Karabakh genocide" the article isn't there. Does it have to be reviewed by another mod or what do I have to do to make it public? Oh, and thanks for helping me :) Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viceskeeni2. You need to be very careful with terms like that as it will attract a lot - if not endless - concern. Even Rwandan genocide has to locked. You really need lot of high quality sources (i.e. academic) using the term "Karabakh genocide" to use it. In my experience, the article will be more stable if you have a "dry" title (e.g. Human rights violations during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, or whatever the sources would definitely support). Does that make sense? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but having a "dry title" is downplaying the events. For example: Calling multiple massacres, mass killings and expulsions over the span of 6 years tha tresulted in the deaths of 30,000 people just "human rights violations" is downplaying the scenario and the events. I'll change the name to "Genocide of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh (1988-1994) if that fits better, if there is any other issue please report it. Also the sources I have named would call the events alltogether "genocide" too if Khojaly alone is called a genocide itself Viceskeeni2 (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the key issue for Wikipedia is that if lots of high quality independent sources aren't using the term "Karabakh genocide" then it really your opinion, and Wikipedia won't keep that (eg. WP:OR). Everything we do here is about chronicling what many high quality reliable independent sources say. I can tell you from experience, that even when only "some" sources say something, that will still not last on Wikipedia, and others will take it down / challenge it. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. While some of the sources refer to it as a "genocide", none refer to it as just "Human Right violations"

2. It is a genocide: The term of a genocide is "a crime where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group."

2.1. Intent to destroy Turkic and Muslim people in Karabakh: As already said, the Armenians targeted mainly Azerbaijani Turks, Meskhetian Turks and Muslim Kurds, all three are Muslim and two of the groups Turkic. The Armenians were also committing crimes as "revenge" for the 1915 genocide in Anatolia. An example here in this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/azerbaijan/comments/l8oxqb/this_video_makes_every_armenian_proud_armenians/. The Armenians are chanting "Revenge is done, Turks are killed, houses are burned, misht hay!". This video of Armenians chanting about killing especially Azerbaijanis (Azerbaijanis are referred to as "Turks" by Armenians in an insulting manner) that their goal was to kill ALL THE TURKS in Karabak has revenge for 1915. Also this video (and also this: https://www.reddit.com/r/azerbaijan/comments/kz40ph/karabakh_armenians_burn_a%C4%9Fdam_after_capture_of/) shows the Armenians burning down and destroying the city of Shusha (and Aghdam), which would be cultural genocide and also add up to the argument that these events themselves were a genocide. 40 to 65 AZERBAIJANI (again, targeting Azerbaijanis) mosques, a major theatre, 3 big academies, 2,000 exhibits, 19 museums and monuments and many other Azerbaijani heritage were destroyed in a way of targeting Azerbaijanis and their culture and heritage in the region. Another argument for Armenians intending to remove the Muslims and Tzrks from the area is them targeting also Kurds.

2.2 The Kurds in Karabakh were displaced and expelled just like the Azerbaijan, with the Armenians finding no difference, same with the Meskhetians. The Armenians aldo, after destroying the mosques, started building illegal churches in the area such as the St. Hambardszum Church in Lachin which was illegally (according to international law, building monuments on illegally occupied territories is not aloowed) built without the permission of the Azerbaijani government, again an act of cultural destruction and replacement of Azerbaijanis.

2.3 In conclusion, the Armenians were intending to destroy the Turkic and Muslim groups in Karabakh, whic his by definition considered a genocide.

3. If Srebrenica, where 8,000 people were killed, is considered a genocide (which it is), then how aren't multiple mass killings, massacres, executions and expulsion (16,000-30,000 people killed; 724,000-1 Million people expelled; 613 killed in one massacre alone) over a 6-year-span considered a genocide. Both pass every step to be considered a genocide, and Khojaly (and therewith the opther events together with Khojaly over 6 years) are recognized as a genocide by 7 countries.

4. I've looked through the sources and these sources call it a genocide:

20) "They committed an act of genocide by killing civilians"; "They did not only commit genocide in Agdaban"; "According to the specifics and nature of the Agdaban tragedy, it fully complies with the provisions of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on December 9, 1948. Therefore, this tragedy is considered an act of genocide under international law. should be assessed and this massacre perpetrated against the peaceful population of Agdaban village should be recognized by the world community as a crime of genocide."

27) "the Armenian detachments of Arabo and Aramo nevertheless captured Garadaghly and committed genocide against the civilian population there"; "Some time later, the Armenian Arabo troops committed genocide against the civilian population of Khojaly"

4.1 So the events are referred to as genocide 7 times

5. I already removed the term "Karabakh genocide" and instead renamed it to a more fitting term like you requested Viceskeeni2 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Karabakh genocide

Hello, Viceskeeni2,

Thank you for creating Karabakh genocide.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This is still a problem and the tag should not be removed until the issue is resolved - none of the references seem to use the term "Karabakh genocide" (unlike Rwandan genocide), which is a real problem here and suggestive of WP:OR. sorry.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Aszx5000}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Aszx5000 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I changed the article name and removed the original rsearch I think those were the only mistakes leading to the tag. If there are any other issues, please tell them to me and I'm sorry if I removed the tag although there are still some mistakes Viceskeeni2 (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted topics

Hi. See WP:GS/AA as several Armenia and Azerbaijan related topics are under an extended confirmed restriction. You are not allowed to edit these topics as you’re not an extended confirmed user. Vanezi (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and when can i make the article again? after 500 edits? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 11:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The minimum requirement is 500 edits and 30 days since your account was created, but please note that rushing to meet those requirements and then reimplementing the same edits is likely to be interpreted as violating the spirit of the rules and battleground behavior. The purpose of the requirement is to ensure that editors participating in editing contentious topics are at least somewhat familiar with Wikipedia policy and practices and to discourage people from solely editing Wikipedia to promote their favorite political viewpoint. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 12:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already familiar with Wikipedia, I've had an old account but one day my computer logged itself out of the account and I forgot my name and passport because it was so complicated. If I was completely new to Wikipedia I wouldn't know how to add sources, how to properly wrtie an article, how to add templates and edit properly etc., not even how to make an article. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 12:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill I wanted to reply to this, but then noticed that GS/AA restriction mentions "non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area". Isn't that a violation of the restriction, or am I missing something? Vanezi (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So now I am not allowed to take part in a discussion about an article I made and which you are trying hard to get deleted or what? This is like when you're applying for a job to get job experience just for them to say that you can't work there without experience, then preventing you from getting any experience. Sorry that I haven't been wasting my time on Wikipedia since the second it got founded and am trying to be a new editor Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanezi's reading of the community rules is correct. Unfortunately this has been a necessary measure due to the level of sockpuppetry around the topics of Armenia and Azerbaijan. As far as workplace metaphors go, this is more like you not reading the application guidelines and getting rejected procedurally. However, unlike a job application where that would likely be the end of your ability to work at that company, you are more than welcome to come back once you've met the minimum requirements and have demonstrated your ability to work collaboratively with respect to policy on this account. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm trying to make an article, then tha tarticle is getting deleted because I don't have experience. When I ask why you say "You can't take part in a discussion, oyu don't have experience". When I try to gather experience, I get a warning for editing too much as a new editor. What the heck am I supposed to do, magically make my experience appear. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to go edit literally any topic that is not related to Armenia-Azerbaijan, (or for that matter, Arab-Israeli conflict, or Holocaust in Poland, the only two other topics that face this restriction). That is how you get the relevant experience. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How if I'll get a warning for trying to edit on other topics "but please note that rushing to meet those requirements and then reimplementing the same edits is likely to be interpreted as violating the spirit of the rules and battleground behavior". And am I then, e.g. allowed to edit on topics of Azerbaijan that is not related to the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, don't rush. Don't worry about the numbers 500 and 30. Prove your worth elsewhere, then come back in a few months. If you're actually here to build an encyclopedia, this should not be a tall ask. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So am I allowed to edit on the topic Azerbaijan if its not related to the conflict? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated at WP:GS/AA, the restriction applies to Politics, ethnic relations, and conflicts involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, or both—broadly construed.... So, you could edit about Azerbaijani people, food, literature, etc., but need to avoid its history and politics. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alr thanks Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill soon after your comment, the user started making these minor automatic move edits [1], [2], which like count as 4 "edits" for each article. And the moves are very minor and as far as I know, you're not required to use the specific English language if it's in latin alphabet. I believe this is just an attempt to game extended confirmed in a fast manner. Vanezi (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viceskeeni, as a general convention on en.wiki we do use the full Azerbaijani and Turkish alphabets with non-English letters when spelling names in those languages. I agree with Vanezi that this is not constructive editing. More generally, focusing on Azerbaijani geography articles is inadvisable, as geography (and particularly human geography such as cities and municipalities) is rather intimately tied to history and politics. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the name because most articles are used in the English way to write them, I didn't know it can also be written in the normal way .Sorry for that mistake Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dude what the heck am I supposed to do, anything I write about you complain it and somehow tie it to forbidden topics. Editing an article about a Lake at the caspian sea has nothing to do with the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill now a clear violation of GS/AA [3]. The article mentions Armenia/Armenians 14 times, including this in the lede "Due to the very hostile relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Armenian Christians have practically entirely fled the country, and so the Christians in Azerbaijan are members of various other groups, mostly Russians." I think there is a WP:CIR issue here. Vanezi (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viceskeeni2, please consider this to be your final warning. The addition of a flag for a minority religion in Azerbaijan is clearly related to the ethnic relations and politics of the country. Flags are inherently political. Ethnoreligious identity is political. That the flag in question is also WP:OR uploaded by you without reference to sources makes it even worse. CTOPS restrictions are broadly construed: that means that if a topic is borderline related to the topic, we treat it as if it were related to the topic. I'm cutting you a bit of slack here because you're right that Vanezi has really been on your case, but further borderline edits to Azerbaijan politics topics without EC status will not be tolerated. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, right now I'm trying to translate the "Calut monastery" into English. Will I get a warning for that or not Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguillyes or no Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously yes, historical sites relating to minorities in Azerbaijan is part of the topic, broadly construed. Even just from looking at the existing az.wiki and hy.wiki articles, on az.wiki all mention of Armenian identity is omitted, whereas hy.wiki describes it as an Armenian Apostolic Church. Clearly, its identity is part of the contested topic. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man what is your problem did I insult you, did I kill someone from your family, did I do anything against you, you're literally stalking every single on of my moves calm down Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your lovely POV fork of an article and then informing you of the associated restrictions, yes I did check a few of your recent contributions afterwards to see if you adhere to the restrictions - what did you expect after someone gives you a notification that you're expected to adhere to? How else would I see if you follow the GS/AA restriction or not? This is perfectly in line with our policies, and per WP:HOUNDING, you might find it difficult to prove that my goal was to create irritation, annoyance, or distress. However, I'm sorry if it caused you distress. Vanezi (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't think a page move counts twice, at least not in the counter displayed at Special:Preferences. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@1234qwer1234qwer4 it just shows 4 edits in the contributions history for each moved article, so I assumed it's 4. Vanezi (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well no it's not as you see, stop stalking anything I do to try and report the even smallest mistake I make to get me a warning Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics

You have recently made edits related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. This is a standard message to inform you that Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Vanezi (talk) 11:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viceskeeni2, as an observer in the discussion to delete one of the titles you created that is now a redirect, as well as noticing you have about 120 edits, it may be more helpful for you if this is explained in more detail (especially since me, as an editor with like 200,000 edits did not even understand what was going on):

At a bare minimum, the subject matter referenced in this section requires editors to have at least the "extended confirmed" privilege to avoid their edits from being immediately scrutinized.

In your case, you should automatically be granted "extended confirmed" once you reach 500 edits since that is the only milestone required for the "extended confirmed" privilege which you have yet to reach. Steel1943 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thank you for explaining it normally Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I reach those 500 edits, can I rewrite the article again? Because my article was indeed neutral (saying that massacres or a genocide are bad is not taking a side), it was a genocide (it fit all criterias of being called a genocide, ye tI had to change the name) and the only thing it had not violated anything other than that I didn't have 500 edits yet Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh (1988-1994)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh (1988-1994) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 27 § Massacres of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh (1988-1994) until a consensus is reached. Vanezi (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for a further WP:GS/AA violation on the page Salman Raduyev, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

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).

Viceskeeni2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't violate WP:GS/AA because the article about Salman Raduyev is not mentioned on the list and my edit also isn't interfering in the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia because 1. As I said, it isn't mentioned in GS/AA 2. It was a minor edit mentioning his allegiance 3. The edit is mostly about the topic of Chechnya and not Nagorno-Karabakh I know the appeal will most likely be rejected but worth a shot

Decline reason:

What utter nonsense. Just because the page isn't specifically listed clearly does not imply it is not subject to those sanctions. I seriously considered extending your block to give you a chance to properly understand these sanctions and indicate you plan to start complying with them. Note that any further violation will likely result in an indefinite block. Yamla (talk) 20:43, 28 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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Genocide of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh (1988-1994)

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Genocide of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh (1988-1994), is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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. Aram-van (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"hoax" "vandalism" yea sure, anything that slightly mentions something criticizing Armenians is "vandalism and unacceptable" Viceskeeni2 (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but spreading government propaganda is. Read WP:RS. AlenVaneci (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I didn't spread any "government propaganda". You took the things I said out of context, called any source that was slightly Turkish or Azerbaijani government propaganda, and yes I did use government sources but I also used mostly other sources. Also, looking at your contributions, you shouldn't be the one talking about "violations" when you're the one violating Wikipedia:GSAA Viceskeeni2 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing - only warning

If you make any further requests for editors to make WP:GS/AA edits on your behalf, I will reblock your account.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I'm sincerely sorry, I didn't know asking for editors to edit for you isn't allowed because I saw others doing it before. I promise I'll stop that. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ayaz Ata, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English. 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) 19:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ded Moroz

You smould not copy footnotes. yOu should use names instead, like here. If a reference you want to reuse does not have a name, you can add the name yourself, as it was there: <ref name="chys">. --Altenmann >talk 23:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks for the info Viceskeeni2 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okroshka

please write a separate artixle about the Azerbaijani dish Doghramaj. We commonly write separate article for regional variations if they are different enough. By the way, in az-wiki it is called Doğramac, see az:Ovduq-Doğramac. PLease find the most common name and use it as the title and create redirects from other names. Dont forget references. az-wiki article does not have references, which is bad in en-wiki. Please let me know when you are done. I will review. --Altenmann >talk 23:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They arent that different though, the only difference between the two versions are that the Azerbaijani one doesn't use potatoes, eggs, kvass and meat. Also, the Azerbaijani translation links to the Azerbaijani version of the dish. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But sure I'll do it. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course many dishes are not that different. Like dumplings and pelmeni and wonton and manti and.... --Altenmann >talk 23:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lipianki, Masovian Voivodeship

Please do not copy unreferened information from other wikipedias, especially is you are not familiar with the subject. Other wikis often have less strict requirements about referencers. Please read our policies WP:CITE, WP:RS and follow them. --Altenmann >talk 00:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same you did in Roje, Poland. --Altenmann >talk 00:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf salute

Leisefuchs]: you should consult source before changing anything. The German word is de:Leisefuchs, not to say that your edit comment is completely ignorant of German. --Altenmann >talk 00:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally live in Germany since 7 years and go to school here, it's Schweigefuchs, Leisefuchs makes no sense Viceskeeni2 (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't tell this to me. Tell to the author of the source cited, and to the writers of German Wikipedia. P.S. I dont know how you lived for 7 years in Germany and translate "Fuchs" as "wolf". also see wikt:leise, if it makes no sense to you, lern Deutsch. --Altenmann >talk 00:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't translate "fuchs" as "wolf", if I did then mb I mixed if up. Und danke für den Tipp aber ich kann schon Deutsch 👍 Viceskeeni2 (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dann Lerne Ostdeutsch und andere (nicht-)ähnliche Sprachen :-). --Altenmann >talk 01:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Könnte ich ehrlich gesagt langsam gebrauchen um mich an die anzupassen so wie die Wahlergebnisse dort aussehen Viceskeeni2 (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, don't edit things not well known to you without consulting sources and of course, always add references. --Altenmann >talk 00:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited that like 3 months ago it was a minor edit Viceskeeni2 (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, don't make even "minor edits" in areas you are not familiar without double-checking. Your cursory knowledge may fail you. --Altenmann >talk 00:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've seen enough. Between the attempted canvassing and whining about AA edits on my talk page, both of which are breaches of GS/AA, the prior edits as Special:Contributions/79.219.145.21 leading to a block, the wikilawyering throughout, the clear continued battleground attitude towards anything relating to Azerbaijan, and the generally poor quality of your non-AA edits, you are clearly not going to be able to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:17, 7 September 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).

Viceskeeni2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. I didn't evade my block because the report said that I'm blocked from editing on my IP ONLY, I can show you the text. If I was blocked on my account, I'd have to go on another one to evade the block. Evading a block with an account that's supposed to be blocked isn't even possible.

2. I indeed am here to build an encyclopedia. After being told to stop violating anything I violated I ALWAYS immediately stopped and today especially I provided big support to Wikipedia by updating and editing on e.g. Ayaz Ata or Nowruz articles and was planning on editing more.

3. The Canvassing was accidental. After being told that Canvassing even exists, I stopped it and it was ONE TIME, because I saw someone else do it.I apologized various times and refrained from itI didn't have a "battleground attitude". I stopped editing on WP:GS/AA after being told so and directed my time towards articles like culture and traditions.

5. Again, I apologize for all the mistakes I made, I apologized for them before, I'm doing it again. I indeed am here to build an encyclopedia, I proved it and have been editing properly. An indefinite block doesn't make any sense, a definite block e.g. for two weeks or a month is acceptable but indefinitely for actions I apologized for and immediately stopped after being told so is completely unfair. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Indefinite does not mean forever, it means "until you convince an admin to remove it". You haven't done so here. Clearly you can't edit about Azerbaijan related topics and we can't just trust your word that you will avoid doing so. This and you other behavior shows me that the block was correctly placed and there are no grounds here to remove it. 331dot (talk) 08:23, 7 September 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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

Viceskeeni2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was never told that I couldn't edit on topics that include Azerbaijan, it was you can't edit on topics including the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict which I did NOT after getting my warning. I asked my mentor 3 times if I could edit on a topic about Azerbaijani cusisine because I wanted to make sure that I don't get blocked for it and he said yes, because tha twould not violate anything obviously. However, now I am getting blocked for doing exactly that and being told that editing on Azerbaijan is prohibited for me, although I was told that it is NOT. Also on my "other behaviour": I edited on my IP adress because I thought WP:GS/AA only was restricted to resitered accoubts, not IP adresses. After being told that I can not edit on my IP adress either on those topics I apologized, stopped it and brought the topic to the talk page, like I was told so. I also apologized for the Canvassing which was ONE TIME, because I didn't know it well and never before of after did I do that because I was told so and told that it is restricted, which I accepted. I also never evaded any block because that wouldn't even make sense. I was restricted from editing on my IP (this is what the block report said: Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks), not on my actual account. If I was also blocked from editing on my actual account, then ti wouldn't even have been possible for me to evade the block on an account that's blocked. I would've evaded the block if I went onto another account and edited there, however my account was not blocked and only my IP adress for anonymous edits. If I was blocked from editing alltogether it would've saod that I was blocked for 2 weeks only, however it said tha tI was blocked from editing anonymously on my IP adress. Also I didn't have a "battleground attitude towards Azerbaijan" before editing anything on the topic of Azerbaijan I researched if I was allowed to and also asked my mentor, after getting the clear sign tha tI indeed was allowed to, I started editing on topics, which did NOT have anything to do with WP:GS/AA. I did constructively contribute to Wikipedia and edited and expanded various articles e.g. Ayaz Ata which basically was a complete unfinished disaster with information missing, sources missing, unfilled infoboxes etc. I already apologized before, I apoligized after that and I, again, am apoligizing now for any unconstructive edits I made and I promise that I will try to stop those edits in the future and refrain from topics I am not allowed to edit on before 500 edits. If I can not edit on anything related to Azerbaijan and not just WP:GS/AA then I will stop that too, however I was NEVER told that I couldn't do that and rather the opposite, that I could indeed edit on Azerbaijani topics if they did not have anything to do with the conflict. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I was never told that I couldn't edit on topics that include Azerbaijan, it was you can't edit on topics including the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict which I did NOT after getting my warning. I asked my mentor 3 times if I could edit on a topic about Azerbaijani cusisine because I wanted to make sure that I don't get blocked for it and he said yes, because tha twould not violate anything obviously. However, now I am getting blocked for doing exactly that and being told that editing on Azerbaijan is prohibited for me, although I was told that it is NOT. Also on my "other behaviour": I edited on my IP adress because I thought WP:GS/AA only was restricted to resitered accoubts, not IP adresses. After being told that I can not edit on my IP adress either on those topics I apologized, stopped it and brought the topic to the talk page, like I was told so. I also apologized for the Canvassing which was ONE TIME, because I didn't know it well and never before of after did I do that because I was told so and told that it is restricted, which I accepted. I also never evaded any block because that wouldn't even make sense. I was restricted from editing on my IP (this is what the block report said: '''Anonymous users from this IP address''' have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks), not on my actual account. If I was also blocked from editing on my actual account, then ti wouldn't even have been possible for me to evade the block on an account that's blocked. I would've evaded the block if I went onto another account and edited there, however my account was not blocked and only my IP adress for anonymous edits. If I was blocked from editing alltogether it would've saod that I was blocked for 2 weeks only, however it said tha tI was blocked from editing anonymously on my IP adress. Also I didn't have a "battleground attitude towards Azerbaijan" before editing anything on the topic of Azerbaijan I researched if I was allowed to and also asked my mentor, after getting the clear sign tha tI indeed was allowed to, I started editing on topics, which did NOT have anything to do with WP:GS/AA. I did constructively contribute to Wikipedia and edited and expanded various articles e.g. [[Ayaz Ata]] which basically was a complete unfinished disaster with information missing, sources missing, unfilled infoboxes etc. I already apologized before, I apoligized after that and I, again, am apoligizing now for any unconstructive edits I made and I promise that I will try to stop those edits in the future and refrain from topics I am not allowed to edit on before 500 edits. If I can not edit on anything related to Azerbaijan and not just WP:GS/AA then I will stop that too, however I was NEVER told that I couldn't do that and rather the opposite, that I could indeed edit on Azerbaijani topics if they did not have anything to do with the conflict. [[User:Viceskeeni2|Viceskeeni2]] ([[User talk:Viceskeeni2#top|talk]]) 13:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was never told that I couldn't edit on topics that include Azerbaijan, it was you can't edit on topics including the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict which I did NOT after getting my warning. I asked my mentor 3 times if I could edit on a topic about Azerbaijani cusisine because I wanted to make sure that I don't get blocked for it and he said yes, because tha twould not violate anything obviously. However, now I am getting blocked for doing exactly that and being told that editing on Azerbaijan is prohibited for me, although I was told that it is NOT. Also on my "other behaviour": I edited on my IP adress because I thought WP:GS/AA only was restricted to resitered accoubts, not IP adresses. After being told that I can not edit on my IP adress either on those topics I apologized, stopped it and brought the topic to the talk page, like I was told so. I also apologized for the Canvassing which was ONE TIME, because I didn't know it well and never before of after did I do that because I was told so and told that it is restricted, which I accepted. I also never evaded any block because that wouldn't even make sense. I was restricted from editing on my IP (this is what the block report said: '''Anonymous users from this IP address''' have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks), not on my actual account. If I was also blocked from editing on my actual account, then ti wouldn't even have been possible for me to evade the block on an account that's blocked. I would've evaded the block if I went onto another account and edited there, however my account was not blocked and only my IP adress for anonymous edits. If I was blocked from editing alltogether it would've saod that I was blocked for 2 weeks only, however it said tha tI was blocked from editing anonymously on my IP adress. Also I didn't have a "battleground attitude towards Azerbaijan" before editing anything on the topic of Azerbaijan I researched if I was allowed to and also asked my mentor, after getting the clear sign tha tI indeed was allowed to, I started editing on topics, which did NOT have anything to do with WP:GS/AA. I did constructively contribute to Wikipedia and edited and expanded various articles e.g. [[Ayaz Ata]] which basically was a complete unfinished disaster with information missing, sources missing, unfilled infoboxes etc. I already apologized before, I apoligized after that and I, again, am apoligizing now for any unconstructive edits I made and I promise that I will try to stop those edits in the future and refrain from topics I am not allowed to edit on before 500 edits. If I can not edit on anything related to Azerbaijan and not just WP:GS/AA then I will stop that too, however I was NEVER told that I couldn't do that and rather the opposite, that I could indeed edit on Azerbaijani topics if they did not have anything to do with the conflict. [[User:Viceskeeni2|Viceskeeni2]] ([[User talk:Viceskeeni2#top|talk]]) 13:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was never told that I couldn't edit on topics that include Azerbaijan, it was you can't edit on topics including the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict which I did NOT after getting my warning. I asked my mentor 3 times if I could edit on a topic about Azerbaijani cusisine because I wanted to make sure that I don't get blocked for it and he said yes, because tha twould not violate anything obviously. However, now I am getting blocked for doing exactly that and being told that editing on Azerbaijan is prohibited for me, although I was told that it is NOT. Also on my "other behaviour": I edited on my IP adress because I thought WP:GS/AA only was restricted to resitered accoubts, not IP adresses. After being told that I can not edit on my IP adress either on those topics I apologized, stopped it and brought the topic to the talk page, like I was told so. I also apologized for the Canvassing which was ONE TIME, because I didn't know it well and never before of after did I do that because I was told so and told that it is restricted, which I accepted. I also never evaded any block because that wouldn't even make sense. I was restricted from editing on my IP (this is what the block report said: '''Anonymous users from this IP address''' have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks), not on my actual account. If I was also blocked from editing on my actual account, then ti wouldn't even have been possible for me to evade the block on an account that's blocked. I would've evaded the block if I went onto another account and edited there, however my account was not blocked and only my IP adress for anonymous edits. If I was blocked from editing alltogether it would've saod that I was blocked for 2 weeks only, however it said tha tI was blocked from editing anonymously on my IP adress. Also I didn't have a "battleground attitude towards Azerbaijan" before editing anything on the topic of Azerbaijan I researched if I was allowed to and also asked my mentor, after getting the clear sign tha tI indeed was allowed to, I started editing on topics, which did NOT have anything to do with WP:GS/AA. I did constructively contribute to Wikipedia and edited and expanded various articles e.g. [[Ayaz Ata]] which basically was a complete unfinished disaster with information missing, sources missing, unfilled infoboxes etc. I already apologized before, I apoligized after that and I, again, am apoligizing now for any unconstructive edits I made and I promise that I will try to stop those edits in the future and refrain from topics I am not allowed to edit on before 500 edits. If I can not edit on anything related to Azerbaijan and not just WP:GS/AA then I will stop that too, however I was NEVER told that I couldn't do that and rather the opposite, that I could indeed edit on Azerbaijani topics if they did not have anything to do with the conflict. [[User:Viceskeeni2|Viceskeeni2]] ([[User talk:Viceskeeni2#top|talk]]) 13:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@Rosguill Hello? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill Would be niced if you or someone else viewed my application instead of ignoring it so you won't have to admit my block was made for no reason :) Viceskeeni2 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill🤔 Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill @331dot 🤔🤔 Viceskeeni2 (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are over 100 requests for unblock in the queue. Yours is just one of many, and it has no more or less priority than any other. Sorry but you're just going to have to wait, no matter how long that is. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how long would it approximately take? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 11:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could take weeks, or maybe even months. There is no service level agreement here. Wikipedia is a volunteer run, charitably funded project. It is offered as a free service with no warranties or guarantees.

There is nothing you can say or do at this point that will make the process go any faster. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍🏻 Viceskeeni2 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you posting about me on Reddit like you did KhndzorUtogh? Did you not learn from your block? I can send all this to WP:ARBCOM and get your talk page access revoked. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand done, sent to WP:ARBCOM. Not that you were gonna get unblocked anyways. Don't bother creating a new account, I'll know. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never knew that posting something on REDDIT will get you blocked on WIKIPEDIA. I thought you're pro-free speech, why are you suddenly against people expressing their opinions and trying to debunk arguments on another platform that has nothing to do with this? Or are you just trying to push your propaganda because of the rights you have on this app (which is why you think you'll get to do stuff on other platforms)? 🤔 Viceskeeni2 (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't insult you or push anything against you on my post, I only asked for help on refuting arguments and claims that you made to support my position. That is called FREE SPEECH. Why are you complaining against it? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 05:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to be "debunked", these are all high quality WP:RS, which you have deemed as "my propaganda" (also, read WP:ASPERSIONS/WP:NPA) and "anti-Azerbaijani", once again using the race card because you can't comprehend something going against your opinion, i.e. WP:TENDENTIOUS. In other words, you are planning to cause more disruption despite recently being blocked for the very same disruption, this time with off-Wiki coordination. Also, read this WP:FREESPEECH. And last but not least, it is incredibly weird to write about others in other forums, I didn't realize me and KhndzorUtogh are living that rent free in your head. Enjoy your indef block. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever WP:FREESPEECH says might be the case for Wikipedia but not for what I say on Reddit. Your Admin rights don't have any influence on what I say on different platforms. And of course there is something to debunk, there always is, especially when most of your sources are by nationalist Armenians referring to the 2020 war as an "illegal war against Artsakh" or some stuff. If I specifically insulted you, then yes of course there is something to complain about. But there is nothing to complain about when I expressed my opinion and want to support them by trying tk debunk your claims, especially when you advocate for "free speech", then proceed to do stuff like this. And I didn:t deem them as "propaganda", but the way you try to prevent me from looking at the sources properly and researching more to debunk them gives and punish me for doing it gives a vibe of "propaganda", like in an authoritarian regime (don't come towards me with the Aliyev BS, I hate Aliyev I know Azerbaijan is authoritarian). And I didn't write about you specifically like a rant or something complaining about you, but rather about your arguments. Never did I go personally against you, but, like I said, your CLAIMS. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's funny how you call the sources "reliable", when in WP:RS it says the sources have to maintain a neutral point of view, which yours don't even SLIGHTLY have. For them to be neutral there'd have to be sources e.g. speaking for Azerbaijan and against Azerbaijan, even if it is one pro and the rest contra. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're proving why you were also blocked for WP:CIR issues. Not going to be bother - have the last say. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

k Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before I can unblock you, I need some concise, complete answers to the following (in your own words):

What is considered original research on Wikipedia? Your answer should include a bit about "synthesis" of sources.
When is original research permitted on Wikipedia?
Considering the above, is calling something a genocide by comparing events to the definition of the word genocide permitted on Wikipedia?
If you are unblocked, I think you need to establish a track record of editing away from the Armenia/Azerbaijan topic area. As such, I will impose a topic ban from Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed. This includes a prohibition on edits related to the conflict as well as either country individually. You would be eligible to appeal this in six months with an established track record of problem-free editing in other areas. Are you okay with this?

Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 22:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Based on what I understand, original research is when something is published on a source that is not reliable or when editors themselves add their own opinion/"Source" to it (like when you take numbers from different sources and add them up yourself)

2. It's allowed when the source is basic knowledge (like saying WW2 happened in 1939-45, you don't need a source to prove it) or small stuff like mathematic formulas which anyone can do.

3. Based on what I understand, no it's not allowed because that'd be synthesis of sources and in a Wikipedia article you can't say "Genocide1 happened in 1000-1002, it's a genocide because similar events like genocide2 and genocide3 meet the same criteria's". However, you can use it as an argument in talk pages (I think)

4. If it only bans me from topics that really are in connection to the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, then I have no problem with it as long as I can appeal it some time. However, if that also forbids me from editing on stuff that is in connection with the two countries but not the war (like meme culture or cuisine), then I'd need you to say that to me because I don't think I really understood whether you're tlaking about the conflict itself only or topics in connection to both countries. And what is a track record, do I have to list the articles I've worked on then? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 10:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you so much for your prompt responses to my questions. My notes on your responses:

Close, but not exactly. Original research is different from our policy on verifiability. You are absolutely correct that sources need to be reliable, but that is not because of our policy against original research.. Original research is when you go and, for example, do a science experiment and then report the results on Wikipedia. You need to get the results published elsewhere before they can be used on Wikipedia. The same thing applies to synthesizing differing sources to reach new conclusions – such as comparing events up to the definition of genocide.
With my clarification in point 1, would you be able to re-answer this question? You are picking up on an important point in your answer – the principle that you don't need to cite that the sky is blue. You had the right idea in the second sentence; see this part of the original research policy for the answer :)
Almost entirely correct. You are not allowed to use it as an argument in talk pages.
This topic ban would prohibit you from editing about Armenian or Azerbaijani meme culture or cuisine. Track record means contributions to unrelated areas, which show that you understand how to properly edit Wikipedia. You would not need to make a list, because a list is made automatically. Special:Contribs/Viceskeeni2 lists all contributions you have ever made. After expanding some articles and a month or two of active editing, you would be able to ask me to take a peek at your contributions. I would then be able to allow you to edit things like cuisine and meme culture, before allowing you to edit about the conflict itself.

Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks for the clarification Viceskeeni2 (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct your answer to question 2 and confirm that you are okay with a topic ban. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it's allowed when the editors agree that the statement is true and basic knowledge I guess. And yea I'd be okay with the ban as long as it's only for a span of time. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also not quite right: Original research is only permitted when you are doing routine calculations, not when editors agree the statements are true. The ban would be indefinite, but you would be eligible to appeal it after a span of time. Is this okay? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 01:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright but how would I appeal it? Like where, to who, is there a format or something. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would appeal it to me (on my talk page) or to the administrators' noticeboard. There is no standard appeal template. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 13:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright understood, am I getting unblocked now? :o Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for an email from the Arbitration Committee before unblocking. In the meantime, I think a WP:ROPE unblock makes sense. Maybe I am a summer child. But my gut says we can unblock; see also WP:CIA. @Rosguill: thoughts? House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit skeptical but leave the final decision with you. I'm not sure how applicable CIA is, since I don't think the problem here was CIR so much as it was a committed battleground attitude, which continued even after this unblock request was filed. But, with the topic ban in place we're not really risking anything so I'm not objecting outright. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok 👌 Viceskeeni2 (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, if this is considered as disturbing you then I'm sorry, but I wanted to ask when I would be finally unblocked? And you said a WP:ROPE unblock would make sense, so would that apply to me now or do I have to wait until you got the email? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for an email. I will let you know as soon as I have updates. Thanks, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 20:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello it's me again. Thanks for informing me about how it works and I wanted to ask you if it'd be possible to unblock me from editing my sandbox, or if that only works when I'm unblocked completely? Viceskeeni2 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That only works when you are unblocked completely. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 00:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was being honest

@I dream of horses I was indeed being honest. When I edited on Okroshka and Ayaz Ata or anything else, none of the two topics had ANYTHING to do with the conflict. My edit was removed from Okroshka not because it violated anything or was vandalism but because it could be considered a different dish and I SHOULD make an own article about it. I was blocked because of an action I did not know violates WP:GS/AA and after finding out it does I apologized 3 times, immediately stopped that action when told so and brought the topic of each article to its own talk page because I was told so. Read my unblock request for more information on what I did, however I was being honest and none of those edits violated anything. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Sounds like you were talking about the AA conflict and Azerbaijani cuisine at the same time. Also, you're blocked on your IP, which, in fact, does change things. If you stop making unblock requests, you'll eventually qualify for a standard offer...but I'd wait a year or so for some growing up. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't, you can look at the edits I made none of them mentioned the NK Conflict and anything about AA. And if I was only blocked on my IP, then why does it say that I was blocked from ANONYMOUS EDITS ON MY IP. How am I supposed to know what something actually means when it says something else, the block never mentioned anything about an actual account block. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit I made on this account that had something to do with the conflict was on the 27 August on Salman Raduyev. U only made edits about municipalities of Azerbaijan, mosques and churches in Germany, cuisine and christmas. Nothing having something to do with the conflict. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DİTİB Kocatepe Mosque (Ingolstadt) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to DİTİB Kocatepe Mosque (Ingolstadt). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. 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. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I would, if I wasn't blocked by administrators for no reason that take things out of context and ignore my unblock requests :) Viceskeeni2 (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of comment is more likely to get your talk page access pulled rather than get someone to unblock you. Admins are volunteers, doing what they can, when they can. Please be patient. You are free to edit another Wikimedia project where you are not blocked in the meantime. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I'll wait, but I've been waiting for almost a month to be unblocked. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 08:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and "Please be patient" were his last words... Viceskeeni2 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]