User talk:Vofa

January 2024

Hello, I'm Chaotic Enby. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tatars have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by ,,constructive,,

I took the sources from wiki and tatar community. My edits were constructive. You appear biased. What did I do wrong? Vofa (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open a dispute and call in someone.

Do it. Vofa (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Tatars moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Libyan Tatars. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JTtheOG (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello

do not ask other wikipedia users for help in case of dispute it is against wikipedia rules Turkiishh (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Cheers. Vofa (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing the information I add on the nogai page?! Vofa (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You went along,committed sockpuppetry,just 4 hours ago. You reverted my edits on my pages,you are going to be persecuted,and possibly banned. WP:ANI is going to investigate you. If you wish to settlement talk,I have a few proposals: Don’t sockpuppet me,or anyone else on this platform,your name gives off that you’re a pan turkist. I’ve seen your edits. My edits have sources,if you will not make up a relevant reason for reverting and deleting my edits like you wrote ,,Rv,, as explanation for deleting my contributions you’re going to get banned. I did not vandalise Turkic languages page,while you did. I am going to restore all three pages you vandalised : Turkic Languages,Urums and Nogais. Im giving you an hour from now on to respond. Vofa (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you can add but the source about turkey is broken and nogais are a turkic people and it is already mentioned on the language page that they speak kipchak Turkiishh (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,language groups differ from ethnic groups. Is this your only excuse? The source isn’t broken,you put them into the bar and press enter. In this case,please revert changes. Vofa (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Your edit gave a source and was constructive, so it shouldn't have been reverted, although you need to include the link inside the ref (and not just in the edit summary) so it shows up. So, something like <ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334168544_The_main_phases_of_the_earliest_Nogais'_history_in_Kazakhstan</ref> (and same for the other ones). Good luck!
(On another note, you shouldn't accuse someone of sockpuppetry without evidence, but if you do have evidence, I invite you to present it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations rather than on this talk page) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Vofa (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Please also read the talk header section of pages in this topic area for possible additional information and editing restrictions. It does not appear that this notice has been posted to your talk page. If it has already been left already by another editor, please let me know. If you have questions, please request help at the Teahouse. // Timothy :: talk 21:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ive read your notice,it appears that I’ll be blocked if I edit something again,as it seems. I’m gonna give up,since I don’t see a way I can compromise with the guy,the rules were comprehensive. That said,I’ll edit one page about Nogais with my source which was constructive. Vofa (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reading the notice. You are not going to be blocked, but if the dispute at Urums had continued much farther, both of you may have been. This is the reason I stepped in to stop the problem - so no one would be blocked. If I thought the best solution was to have you blocked, I would have let it go on past the point of no return. I didn't, but spent the time to post material to help you both understand how Wikipedia works.

Whether you decide to return to the article is up to you. My suggestion to you is to find multiple sources, preferably academic, certainly independent and reliable. This is the key to productively editing Wikipedia, especially in areas designated as contentious, such as eastern Europe and southwest Asia.

This is not a dispute I am going to become involved in, but it may be helpful to consider if both of you are partially correct, and something more nuanced beyond a binary this or that is actually what independent reliable sources supports.

Pinging @Turkiishh: to make you aware of my response above due to your involvement. // Timothy :: talk 03:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes,I immediately understood what was in store for me,I decided to withdraw and give in, he was in the right anyway. Vofa (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Vofa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Austronesier (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Libyan Tatars

Hello, Vofa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Libyan Tatars, 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) 08:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Libyan Tatars

Hello, Vofa. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Libyan Tatars".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When 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.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi, please read WP:MINOR. Most of the "minor" edits in your edit history are in fact major, but using the "minor" flag hides them from some editors' Watchlists. I would suggest you to stop using the flag altogether. You can say "minor" in the edit summary instead. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Vofa (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tajik language

I am not sure what you meant in your edit summary that the "auto-patrolling user might be malfunctioning". This article is on my watchlist. Tajik is not used in Afghanistan, the variety used there is called Dari. Tajik is written in the Cyrillic alphabet; clearly this is not used in Afghanistan. Mellk (talk) 08:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will subtly disagree. Vofa (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree, please start a discussion on the talk page and make your case there. Mellk (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oct 2024

Hello Vofa, Regarding your edits on the Kazakhs page, I am trying to restore the original version of the text that existed until October 12, before it was vandalized by some users who made changes without providing any references or academic papers to support their edits. However, you've reverted my restoration attempts several times. Here are the specific issues with the edits:

- The user added the following information: "The President of Mongolia, Punsalmaagiin Ochirbat, stated that 'Kazakh women in Mongolia will now be offered sterilization in exchange for money and resources.'" This is incorrect and fake information. Please review the reference provided by this editor, as there is no connection between the information on the website and the edit made.

- Regarding the origin of the Kazakhs, there are numerous academic papers on this topic. Please refer to references 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 in the list of references on the Kazakhs Wikipedia page for detailed information about their origins. These sources clearly state the mixed origins of the Kazakhs.

- Edit stating that "Mongols may dislike Kazakh traditions, culture, or their presence in Mongolia overall" lacks valid references to support this claim. Please review the website provided by the editor as the reference, as there is no information related to disliking traditions, culture, or similar claims. Additionally, this statement is inflammatory. Please ensure that any future edits are supported by credible sources.

I hope we can resolve this issue by maintaining Wikipedia's standard for accuracy and reliable references. Appreciate your attention to this matter. Nomadichistory (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Vofa (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vofa, regarding to the origin of Kazakhs -

Please check the the following sources and academic papers -

https://akjournals.com/view/journals/062/71/2/article-p121.xml

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kazakh

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7583311

https://www.academia.edu/10255042

https://brill.com/view/journals/inas/19/2/article-p197_197.xml

https://www.academia.edu/10255111

https://qhr.kz/index.php/qhr/article/view/40

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7583311/

https://qhr.kz/index.php/qhr/article/view/40 Nomadichistory (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the sources that you have presented. They are not relevant to the edits I’ve made. I erased personal opinions which may be contentious, highly-controversial or recently disproven. Those opinions do not qualify as a source and do not have a source attached to them. This may be original research, which is not welcomed on Wikipedia. Please, elaborate on what might be the issue for you at the recently edited Kazakhs page. I will give you a 30 minute deadline to defend your rationale. Vofa (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. The content I have provided is based on well-established academic sources, not personal opinions. These sources include works from Brill, Oxford, PubMed, Britannica, and well-known academic journals recognized by Scopus, as well as respected scholars in the field. They are highly relevant to the topic and are cited accordingly.

Regarding your statement on original research, I assure you that the material presented adheres to Wikipedia's standards of verifiability and reliable sourcing. I am more than willing to discuss specific issues on the talk page, but imposing arbitrary deadlines for responses is not conducive to constructive dialogue. Wikipedia encourages collaboration, and I believe we should focus on ensuring the accuracy of the page, rather than rushing discussions.

Please note that making edits to the text without providing credible sources is not acceptable and goes against Wikipedia's guidelines.

Adding additional source that I missed to add - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338291376_Kazakh_Khanate_In_The_Oxford_Research_Encyclopedia_of_Asian_History_Ed_David_Ludden_New_York_Oxford_University_Press Nomadichistory (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that have you provided are not relevant to the discussion. I do not see an issue with my editing. Vofa (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are directly relevant to the origin of the Kazakhs, demonstrating their Turkic and Mongolic heritage. For instance, one source states: "In 15th-century Central Asia, the nomads of the Jochid Ulus, including those who founded the Kazakh Khanate, were collectively called Uzbeks due to their conversion to Islam under Uzbek Khan (r. 1313–1341)... These Uzbeks arose from the merging of the Mongols and various Turkic groups in the 13th and 14th centuries in the Mongol states of the Qipchaq Steppe. It was from this Jochid/Uzbek ulus (people) that the Kazakh identity emerged..." (Source: “Kazakh Khanate.” In The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Asian History. Ed. David Ludden. New York: Oxford University Press.)

This clearly highlights the Mongolic and Turkic origins of the Kazakhs. Nomadichistory (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not confirm your conclusions about the origins of Kazakhs. The Kazakh ethnic group was formed from merging various Turkic speaking tribes. The Uzbeks did not have a Mongol origin, but rather grew out of a mingling of ancient, settled Iranian populations with a variety of nomadic Turkic tribes that invaded the region between the 11th and the 15th century. One theory suggests that the Kazakhs of the Senior Juz and Middle Juz were the descendants of nomadic Uzbeks. Vofa (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I have provided clearly indicate that the Kazakh ethnic group emerged from a merging of both Turkic and Mongolic groups, as outlined in well-established academic research. However, you are dismissing these studies and papers from respected journals and institutions. Your response seems based on personal opinions rather than credible sources. It’s essential to rely on academic research and a full range of credible sources to understand these complex historical origins accurately. Nomadichistory (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Vofa (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite reliable sources

You must cite reliable sources when adding or editing existing content to an article. This seems to be a recurring issue for you. Your edit summaries are often vague and unhelpful, which does not help convince other editors of your edits' reliability, especially if you do not include sources. Adding or changing content without citing reliable sources can be interpreted as original research, i.e. claims you came up with. Yue🌙 17:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That’s been known. Vofa (talk) 19:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Your recent editing history at Bashkirs 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 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 being blocked from editing—especially as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Stop edit warring, especially when you add random spelling + removing a source and ^{[citation needed]}. Beshogur (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2024 (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. Beshogur (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. asilvering (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: edit-warring [1], this stuff [2], [3]. Please read WP:DR, and please change your approach. I am worried that if you keep editing like this, you are going to be blocked indefinitely. -- asilvering (talk) 09:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #95675 is closed.

@Asilvering: Appellant says you are the mentor. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed. Is that a problem? In retrospect I am a bit worried I overstepped here. But as I said above in reply to the block notice, I am really concerned they're headed for a worse outcome if they don't pull a 180 here. -- asilvering (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI cleanup

In Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents§User:Vofa you used the markup “<ins>Mongols|</ins>Mongol<ins>]] or [[Turkic peoples|Turkic</ins>]]”, with misnested ins tags and possibly missing two left brackets. As a result the page is showing up on Lint errors: Misnested tag with different rendering in HTML5 and HTML4. I encourage you to edit this markup. Just fix it, don't try to indicate in any way how you changed it, just put it right. —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]