Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of
your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to
Carduchii , did not appear to be constructive and have been
reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our
policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our
welcome page which also provides further information about
contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use
your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on
my talk page. Thank you.
HistoryofIran (
talk)
11:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Please see [2] HistoryofIran ( talk) 22:57, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk)
15:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Volkish Kurden ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
A ban without a review other than quote " @ HistoryofIran is our "greatest" user against "nationalistic" edits ", this is not only a fallacious claim but also clearly biased moderation. The case about Shahmaran is also really interesting because instead of the admins focusing on HistoryofIran vandalizing the page with anti-kurdish writings (one doesn't need to be Kurdish to see this behaviour) but also their continued defense of extremely kurdophobic and ultranationalist sources such as Asatrian, which above one can see my evidence of such, instead of any focus on such, @ HistoryofIran instantly rushed to the admin team which are CLEARLY biased for them. I would prefer a block so I do not need to deal with such behavior and if they attempt to revert my edits and vice verse, an admin review the edits so to have an unbiased POV on such. Volkish Kurden ( talk) 17:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Well, if you would prefer a block then why are you asking to be unblocked? — Daniel Case ( talk) 06:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
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.
Volkish Kurden ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Daniel Case I do apologise, I misinterpreted what “block” meant (I thought it just was something that wouldn’t allow me to deal with the user who reported me), apologies, please read below and disregard the block message Volkish Kurden ( talk) 06:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See WP:NOTTHEM. You should only discuss your actions that led to the block, not what others did. If you are so easily provoked, you will need to rethink the topics you edit about and find less controversial areas. Only you can control what you do. 331dot ( talk) 08:57, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
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.
Also to add, all those defending @ HistoryofIran have been making abhorrent claims of not only myself but others who have attempted to fix any issues on pages which are essential to Kurdish history and identity. They have taken a no ifs of buts approach to @ HistoryofIran being reported, instead siding which such user and violating the policies which they themselves should be following.
The user had provoked a response on my first edit which led me to respond back, and yet when I threatened them with a report for talking in a very condescending matter, going against the rules, they instead rushed to ScottishFinnishRadish to get me banned as they had known of my sources against those which they use, I provided a very detailed response on their talk page about Asatrian, which you can find here /info/en/?search=Talk:Cyrtians#Asatrian
I was responded with a fallacious response [I think I’ve given you enough WP:ROPE. HistoryofIran], which in itself should be report worthy, yet due to said user rushing to the admin team as per usual whenever a source is provided against them, instead, I am the one who is banned.
Sort this issue out, just because they have 10 years on wikipedia spreading misinformation doesn't mean that they are worth anything more than a new user.
I would like an admin consensus on investigating the user @ HistoryofIran 's continued running to admins whenever they are proved wrong with sources, even when some users had discussions which were backed, like myself (see /info/en/?search=Talk:Cyrtians#Asatrian), they instead jumped to the report request.
What is this? Wikipedia was supposed to be unbiased, yet the admins clearly have their biases as seen with the responses to @ HistoryofIran 's abhorrent claims about me which are clearly cherry picked [3] Volkish Kurden ( talk) 23:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
also ScottishFinnishRadish I do apologise for you having to deal which such nonsense, but to accuse of me of "ethno-nationalistic" editing is very unprofessional as HistoryofIran has shown plenty of "ethno-nationalistic" biases when it comes to sources and such. Again, see the Asatrian example of such. Volkish Kurden ( talk) 23:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Volkish Kurden ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was blocked due to my accusations of ideological bias against the other user which shouldn’t have been said or accused off, I should have taken the steps to appeal any rvs such as a talk/discussion and then leading to a possible admin complaint and such. It was unnecessary of me to label the user as such, and will not happen again. Volkish Kurden ( talk) 13:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are complaining your unblock request wasn't reviewed for 12 hours? We are all volunteers here. If you aren't able to wait 12 hours, Wikipedia clearly isn't the place for you. Others have been waiting literally weeks. Yamla ( talk) 10:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
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.
Have no admins checked on this? it's been over 12 hours since the last review, I feel as if I am presenting my case and apology to an empty crowd.
Dronebogus I did make a request to change such but it was rejected due to the current block, it was a quick name i couldn't think of others, so my desire to change my name NOT wanting to hide my ANI but rather to prevent implications of WP:SPA
Volkish Kurden ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't know why my request is blocked over a comment which had nothing to do with my appeal but I did not mean the 12 hour thing in any negative way, again, my appeal is like above which if I were to write again would just be magpieing Volkish Kurden ( talk) 17:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Per discussion with blocking admin. User is urged to refrain from personal attacks and casting WP:aspersions, and to assume good faith. Please use WP:dispute resolution as needed. -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 15:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)