User talk:Sira Aspera

August 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block account

@Bbb23 I notice you blocked my account for "multiple account abuse". This is my first and only account here and if there is an objective way of verifying it it will be verified. I would like it done quickly. If you don't like the way I contribute to Wikipedia it's a different problem we can discuss. Thank you. Sira Aspera (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I notice blocked my account for "multiple account abuse". This is my first and only account here and if there is an objective way of verifying it it will be verified. I would like it done quickly. Thank you.Sira Aspera (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC) Sira Aspera (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Either you are using multiple accounts, or this is meat puppetry. Either way, the result is the same. 331dot (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2022 (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.

@331dot It is simply not reality, but a pure belief that I don't know even know how it was born.Sira Aspera (talk) 21:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked on August 1, 2022, at tr.wiki for socking by Superyetkin. Your first account, MuhammetFurkan1, was blocked on April 23, 2022, at tr.wiki for socking by Elmacenderesi (also a CheckUser). I'm not sure if there are other accounts.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23Too bad that MuhammetFurkan1 Is not a my accounts or people I know. I didn't even notice the block on tr because I hardly ever visit wiki in that language. Simply, the Turkish pages related to my interests are BAD and full of untruths, as anyone with a bit of knowledge on the subject can tell you, but apparently the improvements there are not appreciated. Apparently, the answer is to denounce people with absurd charges and prevent them from defending themselves instead of, I don't know, contact them. So does it work like this? Did this suspicion / belief come to you and I am out without even being able to defend myself or prove that you are wrong? It doesn't seem fair to me.Sira Aspera (talk) 08:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Block

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

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for account abuse. In particular, as a sock of MuhammetFurkan1. This is simply not true. I have a single account, this one, and I contribute on wikis in multiple languages, but this is not a crime. I pointed this out, inviting you to verify it objectively, and I was told, quite rudely, that if this was the case then I was acting as a different natural person but in league with the first account. All without proof, because being the false accusation there cannot be any, except that we both have an interest in Ottoman history. The only possible indirect contact with this account is having reverted some unsuitable changes and the latest version that seemed ok to me was his. I suspect that I simply made some changes that I didn't like and it was decided to freeze completely, not to mention the specific problem even though I had offered to do so. Apparently, the reason for the block is that I made a couple of edits on Turkish wikipedia, where the pages on the Ottoman dynasty are in a bad state and full of bogus information, as anyone with knowledge on the subject can confirm, and a touchy user decided that instead of talking to me he had to report me for "account abuse" and "vandalism", leave me without the possibility of defending myself and let me also be targeted by en wiki, that blocked me without asking for any proof or anything but on principle. All without proof, verify or without warning for heard my version. Honestly, I am very disappointed that I was not only falsely accused, but also nearly unable to defend myself although apparently the burden of proof lies with me, accused of absurd things and conspiracies and cut off simply because two editors were interested in the same subject.Sira Aspera (talk) 11:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Based on CheckUser evidence, you are unrelated to MuhammetFurkan1 (although they have socked). I apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience.-Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23 Thank you. I'm happy this inconvenience is end. Is it possible to get the unlock also on wiki tr? I don't really care as en wiki, but it bothers me that I got blocked for a fake reason by a segnalation by random user who didn't like my contributions. Sira Aspera (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to make an unblock request at tr.wiki. I have no authority there.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Ibrahim Pasha a different title by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Ibrahim Pasha (disambiguation). This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. John B123 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gülbahar Hatun (mother of Bayezid II) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ categories

Please stop removing pages from LGBTQ categories without (plausible) explanation if you don't want to be reported. --Fábio Aquiles (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Your recent editing history at Roxelana 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.--77.130.249.225 (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide sources for your edits?

Especially for births of dates, etc. Ottoman articles. Beshogur (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]