User talk:Clauswitez

This is Clauswitez's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

A fox for you!

Your article you wrote on the Algerian Nuclear Program was really good! You should take it and merge it with Algeria and weapons of mass destruction. Again congrats on all your work and if you have any questions feel free to reach out.

Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any previous accounts?

I would love if you would lend me tips on editing on wikipedia and help me establish a good editorial account and I would love it even more if we could work on articles together and stay in touch. Clausewitez (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the links below for how to get help here. Graham87 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to personally thank you for your contributions to the Batna article and also for giving me an introductory course on wikipedia. your work is much appreciated :) Clausewitez (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Clauswitez! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Graham87 (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Your edit to Numidian cavalry has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your second copyright violation. ⸺(Random)staplers 03:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa I am absolutely flabbergasted by what happened in the Numidian Cavalry article. even though I sourced https://www.britannica.com/place/Numidia in the page I still got a copyright violation. could you please inform me better on why this keeps happening and how I could avoid it in the future ? Clausewitez (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose you find online, in books, in magazines, and in newspapers is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the copyright policy of this website to do so. Everything you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 13:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the explanation, thanks to you now I understand this aspect. I have taken time to fix the citations too so thank you for telling me. Clausewitez (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note there's something broken in the citations you added. If you could please go back and fix it that would be great. — Diannaa (talk) 13:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Kesra (bread). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Skitash (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem Hello, Can I know the reason why my account was blocked ? Clausewitez (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are already blocked as Potymkin. You may not edit the encyclopedia while you are blocked. This is called sockpuppetry and block evasion. Which you should be familiar with as you have had other accounts blocked for the same reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC) -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new user in wikipedia, do I share an IP address with a blocked user ? Clausewitez (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to caution you that lying about socking, will make any unlock request extremely problematic. Repeated socking eventually turns an admin block into a community ban which would require an unblock request to be debated and accepted in a community wide discussion. In my experience, that is not common. If you wish to be accepted back you will need to stop socking immediately and wait at least six months, after which you can request to be unlocked on the talk page of your master account. See WP:SO. If you have any further questions or comments, you will need to post them there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

This account is not a sockpuppet, and I would like to be unblocked, I've read the guide to appeal. The issue is an accusation of being a sock puppet account. I believe this is a mistake. I never had any previous account on Wikipedia nor did I try or want to engage with Wikipedia disruptively. I entered Wikipedia because of a personal interest in history, I do not believe I fall into this category of Sockpuppets, I looked into the account I am accused of sock-puppeting. The user was interested in Mythology and the Occult and had an issue of personal attacks. We do not have a similar way of speaking at all. The only thing I can see us having in common is having done an edit to add the Numidia page. This user seems to be engaged with Deities and Religions. I am Interested in ancient history. I also do not believe there is a technical issue of me being a sockpuppet account and I am ok with showing IP or any other evidence to disprove this.

Decline reason:

Based on the technical evidence alone, Highly likely sockpuppetry. When taking into account the behavioural evidence as well, this is a good block. Yamla (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am a new user to wikipedia and I am not sure where to go from here, this is a very bad first time experience on wikipedia where I had just started to learn the basics and taking the tutorials in Wikipedia to try to contribute more to the article base. While I cannot talk about the technical evidence mentioned, I have only ever used one account, and my edits have been purely for contributing to Wikipedia in good faith.

my contributions are very distinct from the account I’m being associated with and I wish to ask for a reconsideration of the block, especially if there’s a way for me to demonstrate my good faith further. if we find alternative ways to verify my integrity as a contributor? I wish to have my account unblocked and maybe be under supervision so that I can contribute further Clausewitez (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I don't see any pathway for you to get unblocked here until you are honest with us or provide an explanation as to the similarities in behavior(never mind the technical evidence which only checkusers can see). It's not just the subjects of your edits. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am a new user to wikipedia, my edits concerning the ancient history of North Africa is for contributing positively to wikipedia, I worked on several articles including ancient cities like annaba timgad and others, Numidia,Massylii, Algerian Weapons of Mass Destruction, New Development Bank and Numidian Cavalry and Muncipium. the user that I am accused of sockpuppeting is interested in the occult, his work domain includes Athena,Atlas (mythology),Traditional Berber religion,Hyperborea and modern articles like Algeria. the only article I think I have in common with this user is Numidia which is not a big deal since all talk about history of North africa eventually leads to Numidia which is the first native unified nation state in north africa and seeing how the ancient cities that I am editing are Numidian cities I am bound to have this edit in common with the user. I don't have any clue how our edits are classified as similar behaviour since we neither have similar interests nor much editing in common for me to be classified as the same user, I believe that the sock puppet block decision was hasty and I hope that admins will be able to give me a chance to show that I have good intentions in wikipedia editing and lift the permanent block on my account, please take time to verify my statements and I really hope to continue contributing

Decline reason:

This has already been addressed by three admins, including one with check user rights. Any further requests to be unblocked must be made on your master account as noted by me above. Talk page access is revoked. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2024 (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.