User talk:Canoooo.4

January 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you entblock me pls it was a mistake from me pls i beg you Canoooo.4 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got blocked for no reason

Why did I get Banned I Only Added The flags Whats wrong whit that? Canoooo.4 (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2025 (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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i Added On Wiki Pages Flags and a Another one deleted it and then I got Blocked the reason was Edit War Canoooo.4 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not adequately address your block. Please review the advice you've already been given, read WP:GAB, and try again. -- asilvering (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2025 (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.

Canoooo.4 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canoooo.4, the block reason was not for edit warring or because you added the flags, it was because an admin, Ad Orientem suspected that your IP address was blocked so you made this account to evade your IP block. If this was not the case, please explain this in the block appeal. Btw, the reason your edits were reverted seems to be MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, which says we don't usually put flags in infoboxes. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 23:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can agree to not go against MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and to use the talk page if someone reverts your edit, you may be unblocked. Please read WP:GAB. :) I'm leaving this comments because the user came to the discord and asked for help MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 23:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Looking at what happened, the reason that was given for your block wasn't edit warring but disruptive editing, as well as "likely block evasion by 130.193.244.173". If you are indeed that IP address, blocks are targeted at a user, not a specific account/IP, and you are not allowed to "evade" the block by creating another account. If you are not this IP address and you believe that was an error, that doesn't apply, but it is best in both cases to be transparent about it.
Like User:MolecularPilot said, the "disruptive editing" part refers to repeatedly adding flags even though it is recommended against. As you are still a newcomer, I would advise you to be careful before making changes across numerous articles, as some rules are not necessarily obvious at first – you can agree to only make one or two changes at a time to "test the waters" and see whether they end up being reverted or not. Also, edits like this edit to Third Operation Ararat (changing the result of a battle from one side to the other, and removing a source) are not constructive. Reading Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Nationalist editing will help you understand why this is usually not constructive, and showing that you understand them could help greatly in your unblock request. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay im so sorry Pls give me one Chance Canoooo.4 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an admin myself, and neither is MolecularPilot, so we can't unblock you. But I promise that taking our advice and agreeing to follow it will be very helpful for when an admin reads your unblock request – especially if you can show what you understood by explaining it in your own words. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And in Not this Ip Adress 130.193.244.173 Canoooo.4 (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone Can Enblock me pls?

I got Blocked Can Anyone Entblcok me? Canoooo.4 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Can Anyone Block me? It was a mistake from me pls Canoooo.4 (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia team,

I would like to sincerely apologise for my behaviour that led to the block on my account. I didn't always follow the Wikipedia guidelines regarding editing and collaboration in the way I wanted, which led to disruptive editing. I now understand how important it is to work respectfully and constructively with the Wikipedia community, and I'm sorry that I didn't always do justice to that.

The reason I was blocked is due to disruptive editing. I added flags to several Wikipedia pages and made some corrections, but another user repeatedly deleted them. As a result, I was blocked.

I take responsibility for my actions and will ensure that my edits comply with Wikipedia guidelines in the future. I am willing to continue to inform myself and improve myself in working with other users.

If it is possible, I would ask you to review the block and take into account that I am willing to engage in a positive way and learn how to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to apologise.

With kind regards,

[Canoooo.4] Canoooo.4 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We do not consider chatbot-generated requests. GPTZero score: 100%. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:20, 8 January 2025 (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.

Canoooo.4, thank you for reading WP:GAB and submitting a good block appeal! Just to confirm: you are not actually the IP accused of using this account to block evade (I find this unlikely as the IP was blocked with account creation disabled), and you understand that the cause of your block was repeatedly editing the flags back in, in opposition to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, not because the other user undid the edits. Do you promise to use the talk page if someone undies your edits in future, rather than making that same edit to a large number of articles or edit warring? Hopefully we can all move forward constructively! MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 00:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write some or all of your request with an AI? 331dot (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did it myself 2001:16B8:B083:4300:F0E1:4E1E:F16E:B5 (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jpgordon I don‘t use Chatgbt or so I did it myself Canoooo.4 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request 2

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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello dear Wikipedia team, I apologise for my behaviour and for not complying with the Wikipedia guidelines. I understand the reason for this. I will behave next time and make productive changes and not make this mistake again, I promise you. I ask you to give me a 2. Chance to

give Best regards Canoooo.4Canoooo.4 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's a little vague. Could you comment on the accusation that you were evading a block? PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2025 (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.

Canoooo.4 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umblock Request 3

Hello, could I be unbanned again now? I've been banned for 2 months? I beg you Canoooo.4 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Administrators,

I would like to apologise for my behaviour, which led to the blocking of my account due to "disruptive editing". I acknowledge that my edits were perceived as disruptive and may have violated Wikipedia's guidelines.

I now realise that Wikipedia is based on consensus, reliability and constructive cooperation. I have dealt with the relevant guidelines on edit-warring, consensus-building and discussion culture and now understand better how to behave appropriately in the future.

If my account is unblocked, I promise to stick to the rules, to clarify differences of opinion objectively and to contribute constructively to the improvement of the encyclopedia. If there are specific concerns, I am happy to discuss them and learn from my mistakes.

I hope for a second chance and thank you for your time and consideration.

With kind regards,

CanoCanoooo.4 (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You, the person behind the account, need to explain in your own words that you understand the reasons for the block, and what you will do differently in the future. AI-generated unblock requests will not be considered. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:04, 14 February 2025 (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.

Canoooo.4 (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Canoooo.4:, I see you've been warned not to use AI before but you've used it to write your appeal again - it's word-for-word almost identical to other AI-written appeals we receive every day. The AI never answers the questions properly and writes so vaguely that we can see when it's used from a mile away.

Regardless, you've not addressed the points you need in order to be unblocked so you need to fix that. Specifically:

What did you do that led to you being blocked?
Why was this action disruptive to Wikipedia?
What should you have done instead (be as specific as possible)?

If you can answer these questions, it'll help to show that you do indeed understand why you were unblocked and how to stop it from happening again. Just remember that the AI can't answer these questions for you - you are blocked, not the AI, so you must explain why you should be unblocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Rquest

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to apologise and I won't do it anymore and yes I know what disruptive editing is it is if someone changes an article again and again without a source or evidence or if someone is waging an edit war which was the case with me and I will promise you that I will stop him in the future I ask you to give me a 2. Chance to give. Canoooo.4 (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the conversation below, it seems you have finally come to understand some of the issues that led to the block and have explained what you would do differently in the future.

Ironically, by apparently accidentally editing this page while logged out, I can see that you are thousands of kilometers away from the location of the IP that was also edit warring at the same article, so that seems settled as well. Welcome back. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canoooo.4 (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! In your unblock request you state, if someone is waging an edit war ... I will promise you that I will stop him. Can you expand on this to explain what you would do if you found yourself in a potential edit war? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I will no longer make an edit war and will stop it Canoooo.4 (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need more details to show you understand how to act in future - so, if someone reverts an edit of yours but you're sure you're right, what will you do next time? Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I am 100% sure and I have the sources for it but another changes it all the time I would contact an admin instead of editing it all the time because I would then prevent an edit war Canoooo.4 (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - can you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and explain it in your own words? Giving us a short explanation helps you to understand it better, and can help us see whether you need any more information or guidance. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia bold revert discuss cycle is a pattern in Wikipedia where one editor makes a change, another editor immediately undoes this change and follows a discussion about the content of this pattern repeats and often leads to the fact that the work process is blocked because no agreement is reached. Canoooo.4 (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if we take that and think about a time where someone reverted one of your edits and you disagreed, what's your next step? Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would start the discussion on the talk page and explain my point of view. If necessary, I would add documents or sources and try to find a solution that suits both sides. Canoooo.4 (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great thank you! Hopefully this'll help show an admin that you understand how to avoid edit wars, they've got a bit of a backlog but one will be along as soon as they can :) Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all right, thank you very much! Canoooo.4 (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I will no longer make an edit war and will stop it Canoooo.4 (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Canoooo.4, and welcome back to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making a separate article instead of improving an existing one

Hi, making a separate article is only a good idea under certain circumstances. If all the information in your new article is in an existing one, there is no benefit to the new article. Can you explain why you restored the article at Haftevan massacre? (t · c) buidhe 06:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because I wonder why it was deleted? That's why I reset everything and also entered many sources for this massacre if you want I could give more sources? 2001:16B8:B08F:6500:1826:D739:EB4B:4A (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not deleted. The reader was redirected to an article that has more and better information on the topic of the Haftevan massacre. (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Haftevan massacre

added links pointing to Kurdish, Syriac, Assyrian, Destruction and Ottoman

Ubaidullah Barzani

added a link pointing to Barzan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian genocide articles

Most of these articles are simply one paragraph long and very vague stubs. I’m telling you this because the admins will remove them one by one when they see. Ilamxan (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why I added all sources? 2001:16B8:B0A1:1100:30CC:E4F6:7696:39DA (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added all the Sources for the Articels Canoooo.4 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tur Abdin Massacre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tur Abdin Massacre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tur Abdin Massacre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

(t · c) buidhe 08:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Khoy Massacre for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Khoy Massacre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khoy Massacre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

(t · c) buidhe 08:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haftevan massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syriac.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Hello, I'm Miminity. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Attacks of Dağlıca and Iğdır, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not readd this and TRT World is unreliable Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Battle of Chaldiran. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. R Prazeres (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. Kajmer05 (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a Source??? 2001:16B8:B0A0:7A00:C8B2:FD81:F24D:CDFD (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About your edits on Attacks of Dağlıca and Iğdır

Please stop adding unnessesary wiki links to various normal words on Attacks of Dağlıca and Iğdır. Please see WP:SEAOFBLUE for more info. If you continue adding unnessesary wiki links. If you continue to add those unnessesary wiki links, you are engaging on WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it won't happen anymore Canoooo.4 (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited your article, I add some tags for things I cannot fix. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Canoooo.4 (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Canoooo.4: may I asked about the reaction section, most of that part is WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION of the given sources, can you please point out to me which news article points out this whole texts Davutoğlu announced decisive action against the PKK and spoke of a liberation of the mountains in northern Iraq from terrorists. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated that such attacks were aimed at destroying the well-being, security and stability of the country. In response to the attack, Selahattin Demirtaş broke off his visit to Germany and called for a ceasefire on both sides. as I can't found them on the sources given on the section. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Borgenland (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2011 Bingöl attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 Bingöl attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Bingöl attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2022 Gaziantep attack for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2022 Gaziantep attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Gaziantep attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battles involving the Kurds moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to List of Battles involving the Kurds. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Xiphoid Vigour ||⚔|⚔|| 17:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zaro Aga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kurdish.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Simko Shikak revolt (1918–1922)) for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Savuj Bulagh (1921), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Persian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mohammad Khan Baluch's Rebellion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ahmad Khan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kajmer05 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. asilvering (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deportations of Assyrians (1915–1924) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Deportations of Assyrians (1915–1924). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text and it appears to be a content fork and should go through WP:AFC. 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. asilvering (talk) 00:36, 14 April 2025 (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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked by Asilvering and the reason for this was Disruptive editing although I had a certain reason for it and also evidence but no one wants to believe me, I want to apologise for that and that it does not happen again this time because as I said I had a certain reason for it. 2001:16B8:B08D:E300:3592:F667:24D4:5271 (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to sign in to contest your block. And, frankly, an unblock request like this will definitely not result in your block being overturned. In fact, it all but guarantees the block will be left in place. Frankly, given all the troubles you've had, it looks like en.wikipedia.org isn't the place for you. Yamla (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2025 (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.

Unblock Request April 20

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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand why I'm unnecessarily banned just because I change things and I also enter sources again and again but whenever I change something I am directly accused but on Wikipedia there is an Assyrian who hates of Kurds and Kajmer05 knows who I mean and he has changed so many Kurdish pages and I wanted to reset them all again or a few earlier said and he himself has created several articles and ALL ARTICLES AGAINST KURDS and his account was also blocked several times and he has always made new accounts why will He is not blocked and besides I don't make my texts to me AI or something like that, and to these Tishreen07 yes I know him through Tik Tok but I have no contact and why I wanted the Discord all the time from that one guy because I just wanted to send proof that this Assyrian has a hatred for Kurds I mean on Tik Tok account he only makes videos against Kurds and Turks because he was just a hatred on his Tik Tok account: @eternalassyrian1 but it was blocked by Tik Tok. But not only he but also his other friends on Tik Tok also only make videos against Kurds or Turks here is an account: @assyrianknight4 , And I also wanted to apologise for what I did and it won't happen againCanoooo.4 (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. You are blocked because of your behavior, not another person's behavior. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:00, 20 April 2025 (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.

Canoooo.4 (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canoooo.4, if there is someone who was spreading so much hate on TikTok that they banned him for it, we probably don't want them editing Wikipedia either; chances that they are complying with WP:NPOV are pretty low. If you have off-wiki evidence that links a Wikipedia editor to that person, you should not mention it here. Instead, you need to email Arbcom with that evidence - but you'll want to show more than "this guy made hateful TikToks". Has he WP:CANVASSed a discussion? Is he obviously pov-pushing? Is he violating any other Wikipedia policy? You'll want to tell Arbcom that, and give them clear evidence.

Whether someone else is pov-pushing or not doesn't have any bearing on your own block, however. -- asilvering (talk) 15:54, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umblock Request (Disruptive Editing)

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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to apologize and I wont do it again. Yes I understand what disruptive editing is it’s when someone repeatedly changes an article without sources or evidence or engages in an edit war which I did. I promise it wont happen again and I’ll also make sure to stop it in the future. Im asking you to give me a second chance. Canoooo.4 (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You had a second chance already; a third chance is harder to obtain. This request doesn't do it. Personally I think you seem too strongly invested in editing about your people(Kurds) and you've demonstrated you can't do so dispassionately; this will likely require a topic ban to address at this point. 331dot (talk) 06:58, 22 April 2025 (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.

Unblock Request (23.04.2025)

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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello dear Wikipedia team I was banned again a few days ago because of disruptive editing although I said that I will never do it again but unfortunately it happened.... and for that I want to apologise I want to have a third and last chance please I know that you probably don't trust me anymore but I promise that I will never do something like that again from now on and should I do something like that you can banish me forever and ever I just want to have this last chance from you because I am use Wikipedia already since Years and have been creating my own articles for a few months ago and it is also fun for me to edit and create but it is of course normal that people make mistakes and vandalism or disruptive editing like me and I ask please please for the one last chance only. Sincerely, Can Canoooo.4 (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. You've worked hard to demonstrate you lack the capacity to edit en.wikipedia.org constructively. The best hope for you now is to spend at least six months on a different wikimedia project, providing at least 500 constructive, problem-free, non-trivial edits. That would be a compelling unblock request. I cannot see anything less than this working. Yamla (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2025 (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.

So I'm not allowed to edit on normal Wikipedia anymore I mean all the things I created and that I still want to create is on the normal Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoooo.4 (talk • contribs)

You are not permitted to edit on en.wikipedia.org, correct. You worked hard to demonstrate you are actively harmful to this project. --Yamla (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could I perhaps know what exactly I did? That I am never allowed to edit here again, preferably even the page if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoooo.4 (talk • contribs)

I'm incredibly disturbed that you don't already know this. You've claimed you did understand this. This is further evidence that the block must remain in place. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1184#Canoooo.4 for the details. This is my last response to you for six months. --Yamla (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But example in the battle of manzikert I have over 50+ sources the Kurdish tribes be there and have even handed in sources but what is wrong with the sources that everything was deleted? Because it has not been historically documented?

Apology and Request for Unban

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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi,

I want to sincerely apologize for the way I contributed to Wikipedia before my ban. I now understand that I didn’t follow the reliable sourcing policy (especially WP:WPRS), particularly when I created several battle-related pages without proper sources that clearly described or confirmed the events.

At the time, I didn’t fully grasp how important strong, verifiable sources are to keep Wikipedia trustworthy. I also realize that I pushed too much, even after warnings, and I didn’t stop when I should have. I know I’ve already asked for an unban several times and was rejected, and I take full responsibility for that too.

Since then, I’ve taken time to better understand the guidelines and I’m ready to contribute in a way that respects the rules and the community. I’m not trying to argue or make excuses — just asking for one more chance to do things right.

Thanks for reading, and again, I’m really sorry for the trouble I caused.Canoooo.4 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We do not consider chatbot-generated requests. GPTZero score: 100%. Your options have been made clear; the standard offer is your only choice at this point. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:42, 1 May 2025 (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.

Canoooo.4 (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you are rejecting the path I offered you to being unblocked, correct? You are not willing to demonstrate you should be unblocked, and are ready and willing to lose talk page access as a result of your unwillingness to do this. Is that all correct? If not, please immediately remove your open unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for your message. To clarify, I am not rejecting the path you offered. I am willing to demonstrate that I understand the reasons for the block and that I’m ready to move forward constructively.

If anything I previously said or did gave the impression otherwise, I apologize — that was not my intention.

I am prepared to follow the necessary steps to request an unblock, in accordance with the rules and in good faith.

Thank you for giving me this opportunity. Canoooo.4 (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, take down your open unblock request and follow the instructions I gave you. --Yamla (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umblock Request May

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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi I want to sincerely apologize for my past contributions that led to my ban I now understand I did not follow the reliable sourcing policy especially WPWPRS when creating unsourced battle related pages I also did not stop after warnings which I regret Since then I have taken time to better understand the guidelines and I am ready to contribute responsibly I am not making excuses just asking for a chance to make it right Thanks for reading and I am truly sorry for the trouble I caused Canoooo.4 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with Yamla that you should spend 6 months on another Wikimedia project. Even then, a topic ban from Kurdish topics would probably be required. PhilKnight (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2025 (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.

Canoooo.4 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the question is where 6 months are a lot and I also regret that I made this mistake again and editing Wikipedia in the original is the most best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canoooo.4 (talk • contribs)

Six months from today is 2025-11-10. That assumes zero further edits between now and then, and assumes you have already started editing another wikimedia project. --Yamla (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

6 months?? Because of such a small thing is already a lot, I have been banned for 1 month and have already apologised several times and would apologise even further and write applications every day just so that I can be unbanned. I am making editing and creating on Wikipedia fun every person gets rid of you mistakes like me... Canoooo.4 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If your goal is to demonstrate WP:CIR applies, you are doing a good job. If you wish, I can protect this talk page for six months so you have time to focus on contributing to another wikimedia project. --Yamla (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I will take another look at WP:CIR and reflect on how I can contribute more constructively. There’s no need to protect the page I will make an effort to stay focused. Canoooo.4 (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taşdelen Village massacre moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Taşdelen Village massacre. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wahhabi raids in the Persian Gulf (1805) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Wahhabi raids in the Persian Gulf (1805). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it consists of machine-generated text and there is nothing of use to read here, might as well just expand that main Piracy in the Persian Gulf article. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Sadakiyans

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

A tag has been placed on Sadakiyans requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadakiyans. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:31, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umblock Request (August)

Hello I want to offer my sincere apologies for my past actions that resulted in my ban. I now realize that I failed to follow the reliable sourcing policy particularly WP:WPRS when I created battle related pages without proper sources. I also regret not stopping after receiving warnings. I have now been banned for several months during which I took the time to thoroughly learn and understand the guidelines. I feel ready to contribute in a responsible and constructive way. I am not trying to justify my past behavior I am simply asking for an opportunity to correct my mistakes. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I am genuinely sorry for the issues I caused. Canoooo.4 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is very unlikely that you will be unblocked without following the WP:OFFER, as you were advised. Six months is now February 11, 2026. The standard offer is the opportunity to correct your mistakes, but so far, you have chosen not to take it. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 18:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I won't be banned until next year in February? Canoooo.4 (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't banned (WP:BAN), you are blocked (WP:BLOCK). You need to spend six months on another project, making at least 500 constructive edits. So far you appear to have spent zero months making zero edits. --Yamla (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll make an effort Canoooo.4 (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:List of battles involving the Kurdish people

Hello, Canoooo.4. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of battles involving the Kurdish people, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:List of battles involving the Kurdish people

Hello, Canoooo.4. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "List of battles involving the Kurdish people".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]