User talk:Vitoco84

I have reverted your edit at İdil as it seems to have removed sourced information. If you dispute the text please argue at talk:İdil why the text is incorrect, preferably showing better sources in support of your position.

I want to point out that [this edit comment] that apparently refers to the armed defence during the Seyfo looks like you are threatening anyone changing the text with physical violence. If that is your intention, it is totally inappropriate and you will be banned. I would appreciate an explanation here. Sjö (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"We domt quit"

It was not a threat of violence, just a "threat" of not giving up when they try to change the name of our people - I will continue reverting it back.

Just cause they put in a link referring to a "source" doesnt mean its is hostorically and factually correct. I could change it to "arab" and put in a link to a source that tells of when this area was part of one of the many caliphates throughout history, still doesnt make us arab. We are arameans and the language we speak is aramean, yet there are propaganda machines working hard to call it assyrian. There is not one person with roots in Azekh/Idil calling himself "assyrian", except for one or 2 cpusins of mine that have recently fallen for this nationalistic propaganda and actually are calling themselves assyrian. Funny how you can change your heritage cause it fits your political views better..

Please revert the changes you made.

Tack på förhand!

/Victor Vitoco84 (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that it wasn't a threat of violence. As for the contents of the article, like I said before the best way is to discuss at the article talk page. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources for statements in articles, and your or my personal experiences don't count as reliable sources. Sjö (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Well, its not experience, its just the truth. There are plenty sources out there but I am not capable of gathering all of this. But I have actually just sent an email to the biggest aramean organization telling them of the hijackings from neo-assyrians on our history on Wikipedia so there will be more manpower put on this professionally with hard facts etc. This is a new phenomenom and we have been naive, simple as that.

No room for naivity obviously, when this other side are hard set on changing history with "facts".

I shouldnt have to bring out a source for what we are, but you get the point.

Regards, Victor Vitoco84 (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at İdil. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mugsalot (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Factually incorrect yet supported by false spurces will never be accepted. We are arameans and have never referred to purselves as anything else and having the page of my heritage hijacked by neo-assyrian propaganda will not go by. Take your time, cook up your "facts" and add your sources, truth does not give a flying f. Simple as that. Vitoco84 (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at İdil, you may be blocked from editing. Mugsalot (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (İdil) for persistent violations of the verifiability policy and for edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 03:58, 27 October 2020 (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).

Vitoco84 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did add a trusted, reliable source for the Aramean heritage! How can you ban me for this, he is pushing his propaganda over our heritage and have been on some other wikisites as well. Every person with roots in this village is in fact aramean, all the churches and sport clubs in the diaspora are aramean, should I produce a list?! This is unacceptable. Vitoco84 (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Being "right" is not an excuse for edit warring. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 07:36, 27 October 2020 (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.

reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

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).

Vitoco84 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

please,I lade the changes, he reverted and so on. I could have been the one filing a report on him for disruptive editing, but this is just about who takes the appropriate action first regardless of roght or wrong, of truth or fiction? Come on, I changed it, I added a source, I did what I was supposed to. He had no more ideas so he made a ban claim on me. What else can I say, what is the right way to do this? Seriously, tell me please.Vitoco84 (talk) 07:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block is clearly necessary. You don't seem to understand WP:EW, WP:RS, and WP:V. Be warned, more unblock requests like this may lead to your block across the entire Wikipedia project, as you are clearly demonstrating you are unwilling to see the problems with your edits. WP:GAB goes into more details. Yamla (talk) 11:12, 27 October 2020 (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.

Did you add a source, though? In this edit, where you write that you added a source, you added a link to the article Arameans, but Wikipedia can never be a source to itself. Perhaps you meant to add something else, or perhaps you added a source that I missed? If so, please show the reliable source. Sjö (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go:

https://www.aramnahrin.org/English/index_en.htm

http://aramean-dem.org/English/History/Evidences_of_our_Aramean_origin/Evidences_of_our_Aramean_origin.htm

https://www.wca-ngo.org/our-heritage Vitoco84 (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been demonstrated time and time again that "Arameans" are included within the Assyrian people, the catchall group for those who identify as Aramean, Assyrian, Syriac, and Chaldean. Arameans and Assyrians are the same ethnic group. Three urls from pro-Aramean organisations does not constitute reliable sources. Mugsalot (talk) 09:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, but your pro-assyrian sites are more reliable? Please. Just bugger off and leave my heritage, my village, my people, away from your politics. Every one of your sources is just that, yet you accuse me. Pathetic. Vitoco84 (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://web.archive.org/web/20081222161438/http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol5No1/HV5N1Brock.html

https://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/people/sebastian-p-brock

Im with my kids at a bowling party right now, trying to produce sruff. I dont have the time or money to invest more in this, but I won't let it go easily. Just back off Vitoco84 (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]