User talk:Konli17

Welcome!

Hello, Konli17, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you've been putting in a bunch of work to improve the encyclopedia. Thank you for contributing! It looks pretty good. 173.162.46.33 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Konli17 (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sino-Vietnamese conflicts, 1979–1991, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hmong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 07:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully; it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 16:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Konli, While most of [your edit are improvements, some renaming are clumsy and have negative effect on the writing done there. There is a common understanding on Wikipedia that the names most used in English literature must be used. Therefor, it is adequate to talk about Eastern Turkey, and North East Syria, rather than the locally used Rojava. This redaction rule doesnt aim to support the government side over local claims, but it's how we work to insure the principle of minimal surprise. Please help us to keep the article collaborative, other editors seems in good face on this case. Yug (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yug, in the edit you linked I didn't remove the state names, and Rojava was written there before I edited. I referred to other parts of the edit on the talk page, but the issues I raised weren't addressed. Konli17 (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Byzantine–Ottoman wars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aegean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not vandalism. Konli17 (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was supposed to be edit warring, not vandalism. — MarkH₂₁^talk 16:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to ISIL territorial claims, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ——SN54129 14:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Without good reason"? I gave a good reason in the edit summary. Why do you believe it's not a good reason? Konli17 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus, as you did to ISIL territorial claims. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. This is the second time you have unilaterally moved this page without having established a previous consensus. (Try to) do so on the article talk, but do not, please, move this again without an agreement among a broader range of editors. ——SN54129 19:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The replacement was easier to follow than the current misleading title, its not clear what naming convention you believe has been breached, and I dont know where you believe this consensus is because its certainly not on the article talk page, where the discussion on this topic ended a month ago (which doesnt strike me as very "underway"). If people (perhaps including yourself) really want to retain the current title, why dont they defend it on the articles talk page? Konli17 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS ——SN54129 06:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS concerns article content. The content isnt being disputed, but rather its misrepresentation in the title. Konli17 (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to delete the second identical phrase in the first edit at Sirnak Province. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problem with referring to the clashes in the introduction. Konli17 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it there, ok, but the section about the clashes is a bit lower, and it was also before I moved them there too, just named "2016" clashes. I added a wikilink to the 2015-2016 clashes in the article, so I renamed the section and moved the phrase. But you feel free where to mention the clashes.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Konli17 (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Badr Brigade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Battle of al-Bab (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Afrin

YPG International (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Raqqa campaign

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand the purpose of manipulating articles related to Turkey or Turks, but here is a encyclopedia, not a place to change history. This is not the place for racists,you can not take the hate here. I closely watch all your edits I'm here against injustice and against manipulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cengizsogutlu (talk • contribs) 12:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2016–present purges in Turkey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to HDP

July 2016 Qamishli bombings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Asayish

List of Palestinian suicide attacks (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Palestinian

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Diff of changing neutral words to point of view:[1]. BillOReallyy (talk) 13:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi BillOReallyy, nice name you have there. Ehm, you have removed the dates of the year when Ras al Ayn was captured first by the YPG and then by the Turkish Armed Forces & co. You might want to re-add it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I reverted you. At least for now. Great to have a contributor like you, who researches who made the edit one is contributing to already from the start. You have a great care to details. Please think about that in Wikipedia we should assume good faith from each editor. Your third edit could have come over maybe a bit milder.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

2016–present purges in Turkey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to HDP

Gendarmerie Special Operations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Infiltration

Manbij (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Pliny

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Francis Stuart, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fascist Italy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kurdish nationality is in turkey not possible, but we can put in lede her ethnicity. See page of Abdullah Öcalan which is correct, nationality / citizenship is turkish but ethnicity kurdish. Shadow4dark (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I can change Abdullah's page too. Konli17 (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but is not in sources.Shadow4dark (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What isn't? See Sturgeon's page; her nationality is Scottish, even though she's a British citizen. Konli17 (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK is seperated in 4 unions.Shadow4dark (talk) 07:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, sorry to interrupt, but it is something that is also interesting to me. Maybe this could help, see Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom. I think this is a good solution for the Kurds in Turkey. Like this they have a Turkish citizenship but a Kurdish nationality if the identify as a Kurd, just as the Scots get a Scottish nationality if they identify as Scots, but a UK citizenship. Then the welsh from Wales...and so forth. And if a Kurd has each a Kurdish and a Turkish parent, we put Kurdish-Turkish nationality. Fair?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds good to me. Konli17 (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing as a Kurdish nationality in Turkey people, really an unnecessary discussion which has no ground. Secondly the British comparison to the Turkish example is not correct, would have been correct if it was the Ottoman Empire. For example Turks in Germany are listed as Germans of Turkish descent which is the correct form. Kurds in Turkey are Kurds by ethnicity but they have the Turkish nationality. Redman19 (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SDF insurgency in Northern Aleppo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamza Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mullaghmore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Great fire of Smyrna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anatolian Greeks

Nusaybin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chaldeans

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Great fire of Smyrna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Anatolian Greeks

Military activity of ISIL (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dabiq

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Regions of Rojava, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. The "Afrin Region"'s administration still functions and holds on to some of its territory in the area around Tell Rifaat. AntonSamuel (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point you are making has been raised and discussed several times and it was agreed earlier this year that it carries WP:UNDUE. The Churchill government's response to the famine is adequately covered in the article and includes one reference which supports your view. The article reflects the views on this matter of the clear majority of historical sources. If you wish to seek a fresh consensus on the matter, please raise your concern at the article talk page. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you believe my view on the Churchill government's response to the famine is, and I hope you're not going to ascibe one to me. I'm not looking to have any view supported; my concern is that a continuing source of controversy over unnecessary deaths is being downgraded as lesser than one which killed only 1% of the more important one. I thought at first that we could have both in the lede, but if we are to retain one, it ought not be the less deadly. Konli17 (talk) 13:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Agent Orange, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the report. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here's a link to the Congressional hearing [2] Konli17 (talk) 07:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring This is the last warning to stop your edit-warring behavior as you did in Tell Abyad. Next time you will be reported.

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests overrode several of the edits I made. I like that you separated out the Confederate monuments into their own section, though. Normal Op (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and tried to correct it after, but wasn't able to find exactly where you'd edited i.e. I could see your edits but couldn't figure out where they'd been, as the displayed surrounding text was truncated. Is there any way we can mesh the edits without one of us having to go over? Konli17 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I re-did all of them, so no worries for now. It wasn't too difficult (relatively). Normal Op (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sorry for putting you to that bother. Konli17 (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War of 1812, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How lacking in self-awareness are you, to leave a message like that? Or is it purely for the consumption of the gullible?Konli17 (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Kurds in Germany, you may be blocked from editing. Shadow4dark (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:AN3#User:Konli17_reported_by_User:عمرو_بن_كلثوم_(Result:_), others are saying that you have been disrupting articles. In particular I notice this removal of material sourced to DW. The DW article appears to be a balanced and informative review of some aspects of YPG International and suggests that some criticism of them may be unfair. Your edit summary was "Sourced doesn't mean relevant. Take it to talk". Are you not paying attention? If you don't respond to the complaint and offer to make some changes in your editing you are risking a block. It is unwise to keep removing sourced content while an edit warring report is open. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident any administrator worth their salt will soon see through the oafish hypocrisy on display there from the nominator and their colleagues. Konli17 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to see through obfuscation, can you please set us a good example by responding frankly to my question (above) as to why the addition of the DW link deserves to be undone with the message "Sourced doesn't mean relevant." My super-powerful admin radar indicates that your reasoning doesn't make any sense. EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK! The (current) content of that article describes one particular military unit in the YPG, set up to have English as its working language. There's no evidence that the man referred to was in that unit, as only a minority of foreign volunteers were. On top of that, the information from the reference was rendered in a POV way by a tendentious editor I've had plenty of bother with in the past, who had never edited the page before. It's quite difficult for me to assume good faith in this instance. I've since incorporated the DW reference at foreign fighters in the Syrian Democratic Forces instead. Konli17 (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that answers your question to your satisfaction. I can give more detail if you'd like. Konli17 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my reply was frank. Is there any other way to see you through the obfuscation you mentioned? Konli17 (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. You wrote "My block of Konli7 followed a discussion I had with him at User talk:Konli17#June 2020." Exactly what about my response to your question decided you? Konli17 (talk) 03:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did it not make sense? Did you feel I was lacking in frankness? Konli17 (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the noticeboard. By my count, you have reverted nine times on this article since 26 May, which easily meets the definition of long term edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blocking everyone who reverts at that rate? Konli17 (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me that definition please? Konli17 (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be unblocked, consider the advice in WP:NOTTHEM. EdJohnston (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever perused Talk:Tell_Abyad? Konli17 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

48 hours from 19:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC) should have ended by now. What gives? Konli17 (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Konli, I wanted to tell you before that you might better take use of some talk pages instead of reverting sometimes. It was meant to be a concerned advice, since you are sometimes active in rather disputed articles. I liked to see Konli17 in the watchlist. But I then thought I better leave it, and thought you might be experienced enough. I have noticed you sometimes don't leave a filled out edit summary, then others might feel to be right to revert you. If you have explained your edit beforehand, it might be better to ask for help from the ANI or if this also not helps from a Sysop. We as simple editors, can only explain with arguments, or edit war. I for me have gotten to the conclusion that explaining is better. I hope to see you back, when you are allowed to edit again.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't know how useful that advice is. The reason given for my block was that I was reverting an editor on the Tell Abyad article, who refused to engage in any meaningful way at Talk:Tell Abyad, despite repeated attempts on my part to engage them and after giving a detailed explanation of my edits. Konli17 (talk) 22:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by EdJohnston you could ask for an unblock through the unblock template and then an other admin would look at the 48h block. As of the 1RR Edit warring rule for Tel Abyad, I guess you have not violated this rule. You probably know it better. Keep calm. When you come back you can ask for similar treatment for similar edits for which you were blocked for. Always look at the bright side of life.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How likely do you reckon those people are to go against each other? It's just odd, and unsettling. Imagine someone with Amr's history being able to organise this. Konli17 (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Konli17. My concern when I first saw the edit warring report, was that it was in the domain of the Syrian Civil War (which constantly gets out of hand) and at least one participant (you) had reverted nine times over a certain period. That was proof that at least one of the participants was editing without waiting for consensus. You have said, above,

The reason given for my block was that I was reverting an editor on the Tell Abyad article, who refused to engage in any meaningful way at Talk:Tell Abyad, despite repeated attempts on my part to engage them and after giving a detailed explanation of my edits.

The fact that the other party won't engage on talk doesn't entitle you to keep reverting. When there is a war, *all parties* are supposed to stop reverting. If the other guy is not responding doesn't give *you* a license to continue. The exemptions to edit warring are listed a WP:3RRNO and this isn't one of them. If the other guy won't respond you are expected to use WP:Dispute resolution. If you stop reverting and open WP:DR, and the other one continues to revert without participating you can ask admins to take some action. But if you continue to revert like mad (even while talking) you not in a good position to ask for help. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. What in my reply to your question made you decide a block was preferable to further discussion? Konli17 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could have made assurances that the problem wouldn't continue. Also, one of your comments was "I'm confident any administrator worth their salt will soon see through the oafish hypocrisy on display there from the nominator and their colleagues". This sounded to me like a WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. The other guy was in fact participating in the talk discussion and was answering you in detail. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I couldn't. I could have assured you that the problem on my part wouldn't continue, but was and am at a loss at how anyone who looked at any of those talk page discussions could have decided my activity was the bigger problem. You don't think it's hypocritical for someone engaged in edit-warring to complain about it? I don't know how you can interpret Amr's contributions at Talk:Tell Abyad as answering me in detail. At length is not the same as in detail. They still haven't addressed the points I raised weeks ago, when that discussion began. You asked me to give a detailed breakdown of the reasons for an edit. Your answer to my response was a block. Pretty abrupt, in the middle of a discussion. Pretty one-sided too, given Amr's history. Konli17 (talk) 20:00, 22 June 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).

Konli17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

More than 48 hours has passed Konli17 (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not currently blocked, as your block has expired. You are welcome to go back to productive, non-editwarring, editing. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:47, 23 June 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.

Odd. Konli17 (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

==

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Ceylanpınar incident (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to AKP

Syrian Turkmen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Turkic

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Arabic Belt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Appropriation

Comparison of Irish and Scottish Gaelic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Manx

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change in blocking policyParadise Chronicle (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Konli17, I found that your removal of my section on System Resistance to be hastily edited away without thought. System Resistance is second fascist organisation to be banned under counter-terrorism legislation. I will be restoring this edit as it is relevant!

Please stop your disruptive editing like the removal of content you did here and here. If you continue your removal of sourced and relevant content, you will be reported. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have some neck, given your history of disruptive editing and POV-pushing. Away with you. Konli17 (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

George Floyd protests in Richmond, Virginia

added a link pointing to Richmond Police Department

Holocaust victims

added a link pointing to Romani

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Konli17, as you have been encouraged to file a discussion at the ANI I'll leave it to you. I recommend the ANI about Reliable sources, (at least for part of the dispute). The NPOV ANI hasn't produced a good discussion so far, and a similar discussion at the same ANI...I don't like the idea of it. If there doesn't come any input from other editors, we could also file a RfC for the discussions. I'll try an RfC at the NPOV noticeboard if there aren't relevant edits in the discussions from other editors. The other ANIs don't really seem relevant to our issue, but I can also be mistaken.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one ANI: WP:ANI. It deals with user conduct. There's other specialized noticeboards, but they are for other matters. El_C 03:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ahhh, thanks for the clarification. Sorry, Konli17.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Connacht, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Famine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - Under "products" in the infobox the original order before recent edits was "Gold, silver, ivory, humans". You made a bold edit to put humans first and I reverted it in order to restore the same order that the trade actually developed / happened (which is more historically accurate). Please read WP:BRD: the guidelines now require the matter to be discussed and resolved before you can impose your order. So please change it back to the original position if you want to avoid accusations of edit warring (again). My understanding from the article and the sources cited is that the primary business of the company was to exploit the gold fields and that the trade in humans was secondary. I know your position is that the products should be ranked by "order by importance" but, whatever we may think, I have not seen any evidence that the company did treat humans as important! Dormskirk (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you didn't do this edit logged-out with an IP in Red Brigades. Editing the same page as an IP is inappropriate, see WP:SCRUTINY. That IP is Turkish and although I could be wrong, you could live in Turkey as well based on your most-edited topics. --Pudeo (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You hope correctly. Konli17 (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then all is well, thank you. --Pudeo (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democratic Union Party (Syria), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Safe haven.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Konli I'm preparing an edit in the aim of a solution for the Quotes at the Tell Abyad article. I have started to collect the arguments, but I am just half through, the Balanche quote I haven't even included yet and I am already at over 6000 bytes. Could you maybe quickly view my sandbox and tell me what you think? Should I remove some info? Then which? Everything seems to have some relevance in the dispute and I am still at the second quote and am not really getting into the notability argument yet. I am planning to make an edit for the RfC, wait for an answer and then ask for closure from an admin.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find your sandbox. Given the wide spread of articles affected by these same actors, I'm not sure putting a lot of effort into getting a resolution on one page is worth it. Amr and I came to a consensus on Talk:Democratic Union Party (Syria) only because an administrator stood over us and didn't allow any of the usual shit. Then they went striaght back to the usual on a range of other articles. The rot goes deep with these ones, PC. Konli17 (talk) 23:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ararat rebellion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Demirkapı.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying of deletion of List of SDF foreign fighters killed during the Syrian civil war Thepharoah17 (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please go to the article's talk page and give reasons for why you believe it ought to be deleted. Konli17 (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this. I laughed so hard when I found out about this. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Made my day, thanks P17. Konli17 (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome K17 Thepharoah17 (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Konli17,

I sort of missed you. Sorry for the PYD part, but this was really a long struggle. Please, check all the updates I made to sources. Harun Yaha, a well known Turkish conspiracy theorist was hidden behind the name Bill Rehkopf. An Ibn Amr source...and therefore also very preferred until I tried at length to explain who Harun Yahya is.

Happy editing,

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PC! OK, I'll check it out. Konli17 (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harun Yahya is also known as Adnan Oktar who appeared in TV shows with his "kittens" (lightly dressed young women), and is known for anti-semitic statements.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kurdish rebellions in Turkey into Military history of the Republic of Turkey. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Konli17 (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Anthony Blunt

added a link pointing to Eastern Front

George Floyd protests in Richmond, Virginia

added a link pointing to Revolutionary War

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Beshogur (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit rich coming from you, Beshogur. Have you no shame? Konli17 (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Syrian irredentism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HRK.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A US journalist claimed that the current [Kurdistan] will be divided in half. Majority of the areas will be given to sunni Kurds, and the disputed areas will be given to sunni Arabs and Kurds. Does this mean more control over the petrolium reserves? What are they proposing with this map (link)? Considering disputed part of the Kurdish Regional Government Cradleof (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring This is the last warning to stop your edit-warring behavior as you did in Syrian Civil War

Edit-warring This is the last warning to stop your edit-warring behavior as you did in Syrian Kurdistan

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. Konli17 (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify the other editors involved. Konli17 (talk) 02:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit,[3] don't you think you are stating the obvious? I mean, Suleiman the Magnificent means Ottoman Empire. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying on the talkpage of the article. We'll keep the discussion there then. Debresser (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have no consensus for you changes. You have no consensus for your fake maps. If there is a change you would like to make discuss it at the talkpage and if there is agreement you can change it. Your forced edit war will not work. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Iraqi irredentism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Golan Heights; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Konli17,

Please read WP:BRD. If your edit is reverted, the correct response is not to edit war but to start a discussion about your edit on the article talk page. You don't seem to be using the talk pages at all despite you being involved in several edit wars. Please communicate with other editors on the talk pages, do not rely on edit summaries. If you continue to revert or edit war, you will be facing a block in the near future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and it's a good policy that works well when all involved act in good faith. I'm currently engaged in several talk page discussions. I have tried several more, but there are some who refuse to engage meaningfully on talk pages, if at all. I've now initiated a discussion at Talk:Golan Heights, but given my previous experience of these three Arab nationalists, going on for months now, I'm not optimistic of seeing good faith at it. Konli17 (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen Konli often and very patiently and insistently active at talk pages. Sometimes he would ask for a answer several times and the opposing party wouldn't answer at all. If more elaboration on the issue is needed, I offer my services.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page discussion is always preferred to edit-warring which can result in a loss of editing privileges. There is a complaint against you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Konli17 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: ). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is preferred, but like I said above, there are some who refuse to engage meaningfully on talk pages. What do you do with them? I saw the complaint, but given the direction it's coming from, why would any admin take it seriously? Konli17 (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions – such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks – on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you a chance now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASyrian_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=989225696&oldid=989220281

If there is something you would like to change in the article. Bring up the sentences to the talkpage and then we can discuss them. If they have reliable sources they will be added to the article. Do not make mass changes without consensus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Turkish Kurdistan, you may be blocked from editing. Shadow4dark (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even in a crowded field, your hypocrisy is outstanding. Konli17 (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Konli17 reported by User:Shadow4dark (Result: ). Thank you. Shadow4dark (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Village (magazine)

added links pointing to TD, Catherine Murphy and IBRC

Hülya Oran

added a link pointing to AKP

Movement of Asylum Seekers in Ireland

added a link pointing to International protection

Patriotic Union of Kurdistan

added a link pointing to Komala

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Konli17,

I see you are getting into edit wars with other editors editing in common areas and in your edit summaries, you say you'll discuss conflicts on article and category talk pages but you rarely participate in talk page discussions or communicate with editors on their user talk pages. Collaborative editing requires communicating with other editors to resolve disputes and since you are in the middle of several, I encourage you to engage in dialogue with other editors rather than simply reverting their edits that you disagree with.

There have also been several complaints lodged against you at the Edit warring noticeboard and it is in your best interest to put in an appearance there to explain your editing behavior rather than ignoring them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I've lost count of the talk page discussions where I've been left hanging by this team, e.g. Talk:Arab_Belt, Talk:Kurdish_Supreme_Committee, Talk:Iranian_Kurdistan#Failed_verification, Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#"The_Kurdish_Project"_map, Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#SK/Rojava/AANES, Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#This_page_is_turning_into_a_Kurdish_propaganda_forum, Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Sanctions_violation, Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Changes_to_Extent_section, Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Sources, Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Irredentist_map_removal, Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Demographics, and Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Excessive_demographics_section. They're a crew of nationalist, POV-pushing edit warriors, as everyone familiar with them knows. Given their contribution histories, why would you take them, or anything they say, seriously? Konli17 (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why would you take them, or anything they say, seriously? is a very bold statement and this is the proof that you are reverting my edits, just to annoy me. Talking about POV, using an artificial POV map doesn't make your neutral. Beshogur (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit [[4]] religious rebellion and ethnic struggle are different things, don't you think?

Shaikh Said's ideas were not about establishing a Kurdish state. Take this leftist pov for example. You said, without a source, "Kurdish rebellions in Turkey began soon after the Republic's birth and continue to this day. Rebellion does not take 97 years without a break or phase. This is misleading and degrading at some point Cradleof (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File a complaint for harassing at the ANI. You are neither a vandal nor do you abusively use a second account. There is no-one else who supports you at the discussions. Is there? I'd file a report but I can't do it for you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P17's behaviour isn't much different from that of a good few editors, PC. It's nothing new, and to be expected when administrator intervention doesn't go their way. Konli17 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cali Cartel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cell structure.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cengizsogutlu (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ayşe Deniz Karacagil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not enough in-depth to meet WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Syrian irredentism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:1990s in Turkish Kurdistan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]