User talk:Max45789

August 2023[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Şemsi Pasha. 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. FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not call edits "vandalism" unless it's clear an editor intends to harm Wikipedia. The person you're in a dispute with does not seem to be vandalizing. WP:NOTVANDALISM FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @FutureFlowsLoveYou, thanks for your message

Regarding the reversals, please see reasons below:

All claims made without references
Mobile Edits made without stating reasons
Blatant disregard of verified content / sources
User in question appears to have history of such behavior

Hope that helps ! Max45789 (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying, but none of these are exceptions to edit warring. (Per WP:3RRNO, which lists exceptions.) You can read up on the guidelines linked in the first message, which include multiple methods to resolve disputes when an edit-war happens. You can bring your reasons up to the appropriate noticeboards listed there. (which are also listed here) FutureFlowsLoveYou (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thank you! Max45789 (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited İsfendiyar Bey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beylik. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Semiz Ahmed Pasha has been accepted[edit]

Semiz Ahmed Pasha, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

asilvering (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Jb09012 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jb09012. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Blablubbs (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2023 (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).

Max45789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Fellow editors, I am writing to kindly request that the block on my account be rescinded for despite reservations I can assure you that this is the only account I have on Wikipedia. Although I edit in several languages I don't believe that to be against any rules and will no longer do so if informed otherwise. As a result of the common and interchangeable access to PCs where I am based, or the fact that I personally know another editor outside of Wikipedia, it may be the case that this block is an unfortunate consequence of either, in which case I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize to my fellow editors. For my part, my interest in the amelioration of Wikipedia is both genuine and sincere and since the creation of my account a few months ago, although my start may have been rocky as I was introduced to the platform and its intricacies, I have tried my best to engage with fellow members of the Wikipedia community and have made several contributions to articles which I hope have been for the good of the platform. As my understanding of basic editing protocols developed, I have also done my utmost to behave responsibly while respecting and appreciating other editors, their opinions and their contributions, which I greatly valued, always editing with reason and according to consensus. I always made sure to thank editors who made contributions to common articles, in full acknowledgment that Wikipedia is a platform that relies on the collective efforts and small contributions of all its users with their own backgrounds and knowledge base, all used in tandem for the good of the community. My fellow editors can also be assured that rescinding my block poses no disruptive risk to the harmony of Wikipedia or its valued community, which I have been keen to respect and protect to the best of my limited capabilities in my basic capacity as a relatively new user. Should this harmony be violated in any way, shape or form, I can assure fellow editors that I will be the first to apologize to those offended and reprimanding myself by cancelling my own account. Additionally, should it be possible I would like to subscribe to being supervised in order to assure other editors of my sincerity and restore their confidence in my intentions.

I hope the above reasons are sufficient for my appeal to be considered in good faith and in the meantime remain at your disposal should you have any queries or require any further information.

Sincerely yours, Max45789 (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Most of this request doesn't actually speak to the reason for the block, the use of multiple accounts, described at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jb09012 and confirmed by a checkuser with private technical evidence. It's entirely possible that this is meat puppetry and not sock puppetry, but they are treated the same. If you have no association whatsoever with these other accounts, you will need to explain why it might appear that you do. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2023 (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.

Hello @331dot: and thank you for your kind consideration. Following your inquiry, I confirm that I know another editor Jb09012 outside of Wikipedia (who initially introduced me to the platform and taught me the basics of editing), as we are based in a common location with common access to computers. I confirm that we have previously edited similar articles in our efforts to ameliorate the platform based on our scopes of knowledge and fields of education, however beyond that I can confirm that our interests have diverged, with my contributions extending into other fields and particularly into other languages, which I hope is not against any regulations and which as I mentioned I will discontinue if informed otherwise. With hindsight, I realize that not declaring this was wrong and a mistake from which I have learned and would be grateful to receive the opportunity to prove as much. I also hope that in expressing my regret at the circumstances of this block my fellow editors will be able to assume good faith in their assessment of my appeal and its sincerity, and as I mentioned in my recent appeal to editors, I confirm hand to heart that rescinding my block will pose no disruptive risk to the harmony of the platform or the wider Wikipedia community, and my wish is to come out of this episode a more understanding editor. I hope that this has addressed your concerns and as always remain at your disposal should you have any other queries or require any further clarification. Please let me know if this explanation must be included in a second appeal for my case to be reviewed or whether a reply to your message is considered an appeal. Thanking you for your time and consideration in advance, Sincerely Yours, Max45789 (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you must make another appeal. There are other accounts involved, not just the one you mention. If you work for a firm, you must be honest about this. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @331dot:. I confirm that I do not work for a firm and my interest in Wikipedia is purely academic. I also confirm that I have no knowledge of other accounts that are involved and that the only person that I know outside Wikipedia is Jb09012 who was previously a classmate and who I collaborated with in our efforts to improve Wikipedia articles. I would like to express my sincerest apologies to my fellow editors and the wider Wikipedia community for not disclosing this fact sooner given that it is an issue and will submit my renewed appeal below. Thank you for your assistance and understanding, Sincerely Yours, Max45789 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @331dot: Thank you for your guidance and I hope that my renewed appeal and clarification have addressed your concerns. I remain at your disposal should you require anything further. Thanking you for your assistance and support,

Sincerely, Max45789 (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Max45789 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

1. I confirm that this is the only account I have on Wikipedia. I edit in several languages and don't believe that to be against any regulations but will no longer do so if informed otherwise.

2. I confirm that I personally know Jb09012 outside of Wikipedia, previously a classmate and initially introduced me to the platform teaching me the basics of editing. We are based in a common location with others with shared access to computers. I confirm that we have previously edited similar articles in our efforts to add to the platform based on our fields of education. Beyond this I confirm that our interests have diverged, with my contributions extending into other fields and particularly into other languages.

3. I confirm that apart from Jb09012 I am not acquainted with anybody else on Wikipedia. Being in a common location that many people frequent it is possible that other accounts are involved, however I would like to reiterate that is entirely beyond my knowledge and not related to me.

4. I confirm that I do not work for a firm and my interest in Wikipedia was academic and has grown into a hobby, with trying to make small contributions to articles becoming a great pastime.

Apology: Regarding my personally knowing another editor outside of Wikipedia, I would like to sincerely apologize to my fellow editors for not disclosing this fact sooner and it is clear that this was wrong. The honest truth is I was not aware that this was an issue being a relatively new user with very little if any knowledge about regulations. I have certainly learned from this mistake.

Harmony: My fellow editors can be assured that rescinding my block will pose no disruptive risk to the harmony of Wikipedia or its valued community, which since coming to understand the platform I have been very keen to respect and protect to the best of my limited capabilities. Thank you for your time and consideration. Max45789 (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I'm assuming good faith and unblocking. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tl;dr. If you want a tip, posting a gigantic wall of text that no one will read all the way through isn't going to help you. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: My intention was to provide an explanation as requested, what do you suggest?

Pings do not work unless you sign the same post in which you ping with four tildes (~~~~). I suggest that you find a way to shorten your request to at most two short paragraphs. Admins are volunteers investing their free time in reviews like this, we don't have time to wade through walls of text. 331dot (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights, @331dot, noted thanks for pointing this out. I've broken down and numbered my points and apology and hope that the request is more accommodating for fellow editors to review in its current format. Thanks again. Max45789 (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Following your advice I've done my best to shorten the appeal as much as possible and would be really grateful for a moment of your time and consideration.

Max45789 (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@--jpgordon Thank you for taking the time and Merry Christmas.--Max45789 (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]