User talk:PawWiki

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Hello, PawWiki, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Martyr Haroun Units (January 14)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
KylieTastic (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, PawWiki! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Martyr Haroun Units (January 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
No historical significance.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Martyr Haroun Units (January 15)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SafariScribe was:
Same as previous decline reason.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 21:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Martyr Haroun Units (January 16)

[edit]
Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:TabqaMilitaryCouncil.png

[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:TabqaMilitaryCouncil.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PawWiki. I'm sure you meant well, but this kind of non-free use as a flag icon is not allowed per Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. You can ask about this at WT:NFCC if you disagree with this assessment if you want other opinions, but I can't think of any argument in favor of this kind of non-free use that would be in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are other flags of SDF Military Councils, which use the "Non-Free use rationale" too. I don't really understand the problem. PawWiki (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other flags of SDF Military Councils licensed as non-free content that are being used as a barely distinguishable flag icon in the infobox of East Aleppo offensive (2024–present) or any other similar article, then those uses could also not be in compliance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy and they should be assesses and possibly removed. If, on the other hand, those other flags are being used for primary identification purposes in the main infoboxes of stand-alone articles about the military councils they represent, then their use is a least not as WP:DECORATIVE as a flag icon and could possibly be argued to have encyclopedic value. If the file you uploaded was being used in such a way in a stand-alone article about the "Tabqa Military Council", then that might OK in terms of relevant policy as long as all ten Wikipedia non-free content use criteria were being staisfied, but I don't think the same could be argued for the use of the file as a flag icon in the article about a military offensive. Simply providing a non-free use rationale for a file's particular use doesn't automatically make the use vaild and policy compliant as explained here.
Of course, you can disagree with my assessment; if you do, just follow the instructions given in the template I added to the file's page and use the file's talk page to do so. You can also add the template {{di-replaceable non-free use disputed}} to the file's main page too if you'd like. The tagging of a file for deletion over a disputed non-free use rationale doesn't automatically mean that will happen. The file will be reviewed by a Wikipedia administrator and the disputed non-free use accessed. The administrator will also review any thing posted by you on the file's talk page. If you're able to make a case for justifying this file's non-free use in the "East Aleppo offensive" article in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy, the reviewing adminstrator might side with you or at least state the file should be further discussed at WP:FFD; if the administrator finds the file's non-free used to not be policy-compliant, though, they'll either remove the non-compliant uses or delete the file. Please note that non-free content is required to be used in at least one article per non-free content use criterion #7 and those that aren't are subject to speedy deletion per WP:F5. This is the reason why I suggested you ask about the file at WT:NFCC; you've got seven days to seek input from others on whether this non-free use is OK, and to see whether the file can possibly be used in a policy-compliant way in another article. If others feel the same way about the file's non-free use as you do, they too can challenge the file's speedy deletion and seek further discussion about it. You could also ask for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military History to see what the members of that WikiProject think since this type of non-free use has most likely come up before with respect to similar articles.
Finally, just for reference, in many cases like this a free-equivalent "alternative" file has been created by someone to use a flag icon in infoboxes when the main file can be used because it's licensed as non-free content; such alternative files aren't really a scaled down version of the non-free file (that would still have the same non-free policy issues), but rather a user-generated facsimile that's similar enough to look like the flag at that very small size without really containing any of the original elements of the flag that make might make it eligible for copyright protection; for eaxample, like File:Infobox Manbij Military Council flag.png being used in the infobox of the same "East Aleppo offensive" article was created to use instead of File:Manbij Military Council Flag.png. You can ask someone at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop if they might be interested in creating a flag icon which could be used in the "East Aleppo offensive" article if you're unable to do so yourself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About your edits on East Aleppo Offensive page

[edit]

I found your edits pretty good for using SOHR sources, but i will remove "SDF commander speech" part. Offensive page must ve all about military actions but not politics. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

[edit]

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

Points to note:

  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. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

[edit]

Stop icon Your recent editing history at Battle of Altun Kupri (2017) shows that you are currently 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. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. R3YBOl (🌲) 13:34, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported at WP:ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. R3YBOl (🌲) 13:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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) 16:24, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PawWiki, this is a collaborative project. You can't call other editors "trolls" and "vandals". When your block expires, you're welcome to go back to editing; please remember to assume good faith, and work together with other editors to find consensus. Thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to ask about something here, what about his reverts? Will they will be reverted back and we restore the clean version before the edit wars? R3YBOl (🌲) 17:19, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. -- asilvering (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The clean version is already restored. Dont act like youre right. PawWiki (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained your additions in the talk page and you're still here trying to push your point of view. None of the sources you added were reliable. R3YBOl (🌲) 09:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats wrong. You can see in the edit history what sources i added (Reuters, WP, etc.). The Kurdish sources like ARK News were used in the "Legacy" section of the article to show how Kurdish media perceived the events. PawWiki (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PawWiki, if this is how you intend to work with others going forward, I think you are likely to get indefinitely blocked. Please collaborate in good faith. @R3YBOl, that goes for you too. "You're still here trying to push your point of view" is not collaborating, it's an accusation. -- asilvering (talk) 15:25, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would apologize if I am accusing. I explained myself in the talk page of the article and said whatever I had to say. I am waiting for his responses there. R3YBOl (🌲) 15:33, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Vandalism reported !

[edit]

Your Anti-Turkish sentiment edits and sockpuppetry have been reported ! Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello PawWiki! Your additions to Peshmerga have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]