You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you entblock me pls it was a mistake from me pls i beg you Canoooo.4 (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why did I get Banned I Only Added The flags Whats wrong whit that? Canoooo.4 (talk) 11:59, 2 January 2025 (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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

i Added On Wiki Pages Flags and a Another one deleted it and then I got Blocked the reason was Edit War Canoooo.4 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not adequately address your block. Please review the advice you've already been given, read WP:GAB, and try again. -- asilvering (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2025 (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.

Canoooo.4 (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Canoooo.4, the block reason was not for edit warring or because you added the flags, it was because an admin, Ad Orientem suspected that your IP address was blocked so you made this account to evade your IP block. If this was not the case, please explain this in the block appeal. Btw, the reason your edits were reverted seems to be MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, which says we don't usually put flags in infoboxes. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 23:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you can agree to not go against MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and to use the talk page if someone reverts your edit, you may be unblocked. Please read WP:GAB. :) I'm leaving this comments because the user came to the discord and asked for help MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 23:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi! Looking at what happened, the reason that was given for your block wasn't edit warring but disruptive editing, as well as "likely block evasion by 130.193.244.173". If you are indeed that IP address, blocks are targeted at a user, not a specific account/IP, and you are not allowed to "evade" the block by creating another account. If you are not this IP address and you believe that was an error, that doesn't apply, but it is best in both cases to be transparent about it.
  Like User:MolecularPilot said, the "disruptive editing" part refers to repeatedly adding flags even though it is recommended against. As you are still a newcomer, I would advise you to be careful before making changes across numerous articles, as some rules are not necessarily obvious at first – you can agree to only make one or two changes at a time to "test the waters" and see whether they end up being reverted or not. Also, edits like this edit to Third Operation Ararat (changing the result of a battle from one side to the other, and removing a source) are not constructive. Reading Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Nationalist editing will help you understand why this is usually not constructive, and showing that you understand them could help greatly in your unblock request. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay im so sorry Pls give me one Chance Canoooo.4 (talk) 00:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not an admin myself, and neither is MolecularPilot, so we can't unblock you. But I promise that taking our advice and agreeing to follow it will be very helpful for when an admin reads your unblock request – especially if you can show what you understood by explaining it in your own words. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And in Not this Ip Adress 130.193.244.173 Canoooo.4 (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got Blocked Can Anyone Entblcok me? Canoooo.4 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can Anyone Block me? It was a mistake from me pls Canoooo.4 (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2025 (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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedia team,

I would like to sincerely apologise for my behaviour that led to the block on my account. I didn't always follow the Wikipedia guidelines regarding editing and collaboration in the way I wanted, which led to disruptive editing. I now understand how important it is to work respectfully and constructively with the Wikipedia community, and I'm sorry that I didn't always do justice to that.

The reason I was blocked is due to disruptive editing. I added flags to several Wikipedia pages and made some corrections, but another user repeatedly deleted them. As a result, I was blocked.

I take responsibility for my actions and will ensure that my edits comply with Wikipedia guidelines in the future. I am willing to continue to inform myself and improve myself in working with other users.

If it is possible, I would ask you to review the block and take into account that I am willing to engage in a positive way and learn how to make valuable contributions to Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time and for the opportunity to apologise.

With kind regards,

[Canoooo.4] Canoooo.4 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We do not consider chatbot-generated requests. GPTZero score: 100%. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:20, 8 January 2025 (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.

Canoooo.4, thank you for reading WP:GAB and submitting a good block appeal! Just to confirm: you are not actually the IP accused of using this account to block evade (I find this unlikely as the IP was blocked with account creation disabled), and you understand that the cause of your block was repeatedly editing the flags back in, in opposition to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, not because the other user undid the edits. Do you promise to use the talk page if someone undies your edits in future, rather than making that same edit to a large number of articles or edit warring? Hopefully we can all move forward constructively! MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 00:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you write some or all of your request with an AI? 331dot (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did it myself 2001:16B8:B083:4300:F0E1:4E1E:F16E:B5 (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jpgordon I don‘t use Chatgbt or so I did it myself Canoooo.4 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2025 (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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello dear Wikipedia team, I apologise for my behaviour and for not complying with the Wikipedia guidelines. I understand the reason for this. I will behave next time and make productive changes and not make this mistake again, I promise you. I ask you to give me a 2. Chance to

give Best regards Canoooo.4Canoooo.4 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's a little vague. Could you comment on the accusation that you were evading a block? PhilKnight (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2025 (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.

Canoooo.4 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could I be unbanned again now? I've been banned for 2 months? I beg you Canoooo.4 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2025 (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).

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Dear Administrators,

I would like to apologise for my behaviour, which led to the blocking of my account due to "disruptive editing". I acknowledge that my edits were perceived as disruptive and may have violated Wikipedia's guidelines.

I now realise that Wikipedia is based on consensus, reliability and constructive cooperation. I have dealt with the relevant guidelines on edit-warring, consensus-building and discussion culture and now understand better how to behave appropriately in the future.

If my account is unblocked, I promise to stick to the rules, to clarify differences of opinion objectively and to contribute constructively to the improvement of the encyclopedia. If there are specific concerns, I am happy to discuss them and learn from my mistakes.

I hope for a second chance and thank you for your time and consideration.

With kind regards,

CanoCanoooo.4 (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You, the person behind the account, need to explain in your own words that you understand the reasons for the block, and what you will do differently in the future. AI-generated unblock requests will not be considered. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:04, 14 February 2025 (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.

Canoooo.4 (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Canoooo.4:, I see you've been warned not to use AI before but you've used it to write your appeal again - it's word-for-word almost identical to other AI-written appeals we receive every day. The AI never answers the questions properly and writes so vaguely that we can see when it's used from a mile away.

Regardless, you've not addressed the points you need in order to be unblocked so you need to fix that. Specifically:

• What did you do that led to you being blocked?
• Why was this action disruptive to Wikipedia?
• What should you have done instead (be as specific as possible)?

If you can answer these questions, it'll help to show that you do indeed understand why you were unblocked and how to stop it from happening again. Just remember that the AI can't answer these questions for you - you are blocked, not the AI, so you must explain why you should be unblocked. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canoooo.4 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I want to apologise and I won't do it anymore and yes I know what disruptive editing is it is if someone changes an article again and again without a source or evidence or if someone is waging an edit war which was the case with me and I will promise you that I will stop him in the future I ask you to give me a 2. Chance to give. Canoooo.4 (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the conversation below, it seems you have finally come to understand some of the issues that led to the block and have explained what you would do differently in the future.

Ironically, by apparently accidentally editing this page while logged out, I can see that you are thousands of kilometers away from the location of the IP that was also edit warring at the same article, so that seems settled as well. Welcome back. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Canoooo.4 (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! In your unblock request you state, if someone is waging an edit war ... I will promise you that I will stop him. Can you expand on this to explain what you would do if you found yourself in a potential edit war? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I will no longer make an edit war and will stop it Canoooo.4 (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need more details to show you understand how to act in future - so, if someone reverts an edit of yours but you're sure you're right, what will you do next time? Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I am 100% sure and I have the sources for it but another changes it all the time I would contact an admin instead of editing it all the time because I would then prevent an edit war Canoooo.4 (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite - can you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and explain it in your own words? Giving us a short explanation helps you to understand it better, and can help us see whether you need any more information or guidance. Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia bold revert discuss cycle is a pattern in Wikipedia where one editor makes a change, another editor immediately undoes this change and follows a discussion about the content of this pattern repeats and often leads to the fact that the work process is blocked because no agreement is reached. Canoooo.4 (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if we take that and think about a time where someone reverted one of your edits and you disagreed, what's your next step? Blue Sonnet (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would start the discussion on the talk page and explain my point of view. If necessary, I would add documents or sources and try to find a solution that suits both sides. Canoooo.4 (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great thank you! Hopefully this'll help show an admin that you understand how to avoid edit wars, they've got a bit of a backlog but one will be along as soon as they can :) Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all right, thank you very much! Canoooo.4 (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that I will no longer make an edit war and will stop it Canoooo.4 (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canoooo.4, and welcome back to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, making a separate article is only a good idea under certain circumstances. If all the information in your new article is in an existing one, there is no benefit to the new article. Can you explain why you restored the article at Haftevan massacre? (t · c) buidhe 06:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because I wonder why it was deleted? That's why I reset everything and also entered many sources for this massacre if you want I could give more sources? 2001:16B8:B08F:6500:1826:D739:EB4B:4A (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was not deleted. The reader was redirected to an article that has more and better information on the topic of the Haftevan massacre. (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.)

Haftevan massacre

added links pointing to Kurdish, Syriac, Assyrian, Destruction and Ottoman

Ubaidullah Barzani

added a link pointing to Barzan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these articles are simply one paragraph long and very vague stubs. I’m telling you this because the admins will remove them one by one when they see. Ilamxan (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why I added all sources? 2001:16B8:B0A1:1100:30CC:E4F6:7696:39DA (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added all the Sources for the Articels Canoooo.4 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tur Abdin Massacre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tur Abdin Massacre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

(t · c) buidhe 08:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Khoy Massacre is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khoy Massacre until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

(t · c) buidhe 08:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haftevan massacre, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syriac.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Miminity. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Attacks of Dağlıca and Iğdır, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not readd this and TRT World is unreliable Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:10, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unnessesary wiki links to various normal words on Attacks of Dağlıca and Iğdır. Please see WP:SEAOFBLUE for more info. If you continue adding unnessesary wiki links. If you continue to add those unnessesary wiki links, you are engaging on WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it won't happen anymore Canoooo.4 (talk) 11:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I copyedited your article, I add some tags for things I cannot fix. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:00, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Canoooo.4 (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Canoooo.4: may I asked about the reaction section, most of that part is WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION of the given sources, can you please point out to me which news article points out this whole texts Davutoğlu announced decisive action against the PKK and spoke of a liberation of the mountains in northern Iraq from terrorists. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stated that such attacks were aimed at destroying the well-being, security and stability of the country. In response to the attack, Selahattin Demirtaş broke off his visit to Germany and called for a ceasefire on both sides. as I can't found them on the sources given on the section. Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Borgenland (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]