User talk:Cirflow

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Cirflow. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Panama may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hello, I'm Winkelvi. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Autism because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 25 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the French people page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania

Hello. Thanks for your contribution to the Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania article. Would you please cite a source for the borough's GDP per capita and median income? Also, would you please specify if that median income is per capita or per household, and what unit you're referring to with the numbers? I presume the unit is U.S. dollars, but I can't be certain. Pha telegrapher (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 2 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Damascus page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deir ez-Zor Museum

Hi Cirflow, Do you have a source for this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deir_ez-Zor_Museum&curid=29880576&diff=664731233&oldid=650597246 ? Thanks!--Zoeperkoe (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do, let me find it though,.what happens is that I read something but then later I come across an wiki article I can contribute to, but disn't read the article with the purpose of editing it, so I don't cite.

Thanks! Appreciate the time you took for that and it's from a source I would definitely not have found myself! --Zoeperkoe (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war (resolved)

I have seen the long slow burning edit war on the Armenians in Turkey article. Use mediation , RFC, or TP to get consensus. Dont engage in meaningless edit wars. I have restored the article to a stable version editted by an administrator. Anything you want to add or delete should now go through the Talk Page , where you should gain consensus before putting it in, or taking it out. Regards FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I already did that, and made a section on both their pages telling them to reply, to no reply. They continued to revert the well written, accurate, cited, page that I have worked hard on writing and still haven't respoded to the section I made MONTHS AGO. Since they continued to revert, if I were to stop warring, my edit would be then forgotten, and overwritten by continuous others and the hours I spent would be in vain. I have rewritten and adjusted countless times and they continued to revert, so after I checked it over and couldn't even see anything I could change I just reverted and reverted without any change. STILL NO REPLY BTW. I am not to blame. They are... If I can even say they, because I suspect that Mortianna is a puppet of Ysonora in my opinion, the way it did the same automated reply when it reverted my edits.

With regards from me, User:Cirflow.

Eastern Orthodox Church

You've been informed, albeit in an edit summary, that one can not cite Wikipedia as a reference because Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However, you have reinserted content despite this instruction. This makes your edit appear to be edit warring. Please revert to the previous version and go to the article talk page to determine consensus for your content. Tiderolls 22:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my bad. I was editing the article while that showed up and didn't notice it until now. I'll find proper citations then. I remember hearing that it was ok to list wikipedia as a valid citation but I guess not.

Indeed? Then why have you added more unsourced content while I was posting my first message? Tiderolls 23:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I only noticed this one after I finished my edits. It's not as easy to see everything on mobile either. In fact, now I am trying to find citations right now. Btw, how do I sign a comment?, I noticed it never does for me.

See Help:Wiki markup#Signing comments. But you have the process backwards. You first have a source that supports the content THEN you add the content. Please self revert and begin a discussion on the article talk page. Tiderolls 23:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is most information I read is off of wikipedia, as textbook grade info is hard to find as you need to purchase it,ship it to your home, etc. you don't know what has info until you do all that as well. And as I said before I thought wikipedia was acceptable for citing anyway.

No, the thing is you've edit warred to add unsourced content that appears to be personal commentary. I've requested that you self revert as a good will gesture to begin discussion on the article talk page. None of this will get you blocked but it does demonstrate a pattern for behavior that has already gotten you blocked before. If you continue you are jeopardizing your editing privilege. Tiderolls 01:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I was blocked before is because thr 3 (tag teaming) administrators for that article were biased and by the time I was able to appeal my ban(which was only for 4 undos which were revisions I did to compromise with them) i couldent even edit my own page for 24hrs. As for the other edit war, I was proven innocent and the people I warred with had their accounts banned, not me. And uncited Personal commentary? Tbh that sounds a lot like you personally want my edit deleted. I read a lot of it from Wikipedia articles and was gonna find citations for the rest. Me and the other editor were both working towards an acceptable version too. However, if he reverts my edit as disagreeable I'll open up a talk page section on the issue or just drop it overall, of which the latter would probably be your preferred option. User:Cirflow, 1:29

Yes, I want personal commentary deleted. If I had an issue with the content I would've reverted. This is not about content, it's about behavior. Suffice it to say I do not believe 3 admins tag teamed you into 3RR. Your perception of events demonstrates you have not learned from your blocks. Have you read WP:Edit warring? That might be a place for you to start before you continue. Tiderolls 01:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i wasn't even blocked the second time, and for the one I was blocked i even have another user who supports my opinion and even tried to appeal in place of me. The second one I made the edit, then after a few reverts over a few days (not breaking 3RR) I made a talk page section and then made messages to both pages, to no reply. It went on until someone finally intervened, and shortly afterwards both accounts were blocked for disruptive editing. But I'm not gonna talk about this anymore, there's no point. Can you explain what you mean by "commentary" first though?

As I suspected. You haven't read the policy. Tiderolls 02:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Catalcam, Dargecit) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Catalcam, Dargecit, Cirflow!

Wikipedia editor AirCombat just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hi there! Thanks for creating this page. Before going further, I'd recommend reading the manual of style and checking out WP:Teahouse if you need help. Thanks for contributing!

To reply, leave a comment on AirCombat's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on List of Albanian Americans, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

harrassment,bullying,admin goading folk into 3 reverts by tag teaming, agenda driven teams of editors with pet admins et cetera

your instincts regarding the above are correct in my opinion. There is a remarkable process which is taking place unchecked on some articles where a distinctly and easily identifiable cultural group hijack an article to ensure it presents a favourable picture of a questionable subject. I,like you, have been subject to a process of wikilawyering to achieve this desired purpose of silencing calls for balance and truth in such articles. You have already perceptively pointed out how the procedures are rigidly enforced for content that contests the desired article slant and ignored for content that supports it. In its early days Wikipedia was something of a joke as folk posted all kinds of nonsense often just to see how long it lasted without being taken down. Now it is not so funny as the continued defence of these medieval practices based on repressive thinking and wrong headed notions causes deaths and disability and loss of joy. Be very careful not to be goaded into enforced silence. Yours is at present a lone voice amongst the cabals blanket bombing and fake consensus dramas --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 21:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although, in some instances i feel that the article is heavily policed due to the fact that since its contentious, people go on trying to post radical views. As you state they are biased, They could also contest that an editor always posting anti circ stuff is biased towards anti circ. therefore, I only wish to modify or add factual and nonbiased information. The extremly strict editors, I feel, are not necessarily biased, but lawyer too much. If I could find a MEDRS source for morten frischs study on autism and infant circumcision I feel that they would allow it, or would be forced to through discussion. The way they treat this article as strictly medical is what has bugged me the most. For example, I stated the procedure was a ritual, and also that the article should not follow MEDRS cite rules because circumcision,for the vast majority of people around the world who practice it, has no medical significance. Surely, there are reasons to do it and it is therefore a medical procedure for certain problems like phimosis, Balanitis, etc. The page was recently blocked due to a defense I made in order to get an edit passed, and the edit in question was in the section for society and culture in the subsection for jews- it was metzitzeh p peh. First, they stated it had nothing to do with circumcision, then they stated it didn't follow MEDRS rules in the SOCIETY AND CULTURE SECTION! Honestly, this article needs to be broken up into Medical Circumcision, cultural circumcision, and routine circumcision. But If not that, then distinctions MUST be made between the two and MEDRS cite rules should not be enforced outside of biomedical sections such as affects, technique, etc. each day ignorant parents come here looking for unbiased info, but all they find is an article which is full of censorships and omissions. User:Cirflow

Also, I just noticed that you appear to have a indefinite topic ban. That's quite unfortunate. It's a shame that you got forcibly silenced, as you could of helped improve the article along with me, User:Prcc27., and other editors who wish to end the pages censorship. If you happen to have a different account, I suggest next time you be more careful, as being too forceful and wanting immediate changes not being defended and restored by other editors won't work. What needs to happen is for several editors such as you and me to form up and make a concerted effort to counteract the tag teaming that the Administrators have been doing, while at the same time fully justifying our edits, having consensus amongst ourself on a proposed edit, not using UNDUE sources, and being factual and unbiased. If we can do that, then we will have more people that support our side and the ending of the everlasting censorship which plagues the page will eventually occur if, granted, we can gain the majority in regard to consensus. Considering how often editors appear to do lone edits and get immediately shot down by several administrators at once mere minutes after, I feel a majority may be obtainable.User:Cirflow

Hello Cirflow,

I advise patients and logic. Circumcision is a difficult article to edit without bias. I used to be heavily involved with it and still check in from time to time. I was drawn to the article for its disparity and un neutrality. Unfortunately it seems there are usually more pro circ editors and admins than con watching the page. Edit wars and wiki lawerying abound making even the smallest change tedious and time consuming. Take heart, others are watching, and you never know who might lend a hand. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

user:Garycompugeek, I feel that if you, me, and anyone else like us(those desiring a more accurate and unbiased article) begin to collaborate on edits and we ALL defend them when they get blocked, we could end this bias through gaining consensus. These administrators have time and time again tag teamed and blocked almost every edit to the page that we do. If all of us together try to collaborate to the degree with which these administrators do, there will be change, and this article will be restored to the neutral point of view it had years ago before Zad began editing it. By giving up you are allowing misinformation to be spread on a site which prides itself on consensus, neutrality, evidence, and logical discussion. They can't silence and censor us if we are the majority and we effectively rationalize and compromise on our edits. User:Cirflow

Catalcam, Dargecit

I have removed part of your addition to the above article, as it appears to have been copied directly from http://www.aina.org/ata/2013101916954.htm, a copyright web page. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. — Diannaa (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You literally deleted my edit from the page history! I can't even see what I did wrong and adjust it. This is unfair and unjustified. I didn't steal information from their website! I want to see the edit you did versus mine.Cirflow (talk)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Urinary tract infection. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Jytdog (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Iranian Americans, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, 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 some test edits, please use the 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arameans/Syriacs

Hey Cirflow!

The Arameans and Syriacs are the same folk with the same identity! The Arameans called themself Syriacs after they converted to christianity. Nowadays you can see people call themself Arameans and other call themself Syriacs! But they are known as ONE nation. Like Josephus Flavius said: Aram had the Arameans, who were called Syrians by the Greeks. So it's a tautology!, they also use the same flag.

Can I please change the page back?

Thanks

Gabriël — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielOromoy (talk • contribs) 10:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does the designation exist at all? Wouldent they all identify as either Syriacs or Arameans then, rather then two separate things? if they were one and the same they would not idenfiy as separate things.Cirflow (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 28 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Assyria page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian people article

Hey, thanks for being on my side in the Assyrian people article. The user Mugasalot seems like a very persistent and stubborn editor who just cannot comprehend reason and rationale with his fellow Wikipedians. We should both try hard editing out and/or reverting his agenda-fueled edits that promote an identity (Aramean) that doesn't belong to us. I'm glad that we both understood each other on who Assyrians are, and how they differ from their subgroups such as Chaldeans (Chaldo-Assyrians being a suited title instead of Chaldeans, since not all Assyrians identify as Chaldeans). Meganesia (talk) 05:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is certainly being unreasonable, but I must admit that this is an issue which has garnered controversy in the past. Assyrians are very divided over their names, and not even I know exactly how it works because one will tell you this and another will tell you that. Also, Just as a heads up so we can continue to collaborate- you ought to be careful about what you say about other editors, because if you "talk shit" about users it can get you banned. Nevertheless, I am happy that you are here to contribute and help me with these edits, there are not many active editors managing and creating new Assyrian articles other than me.Cirflow (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Glad that we get each other. I hope that I won't get in trouble, because I didn't insult him or make death threats. I merely stated that he was dead wrong about us and that he had an agenda. Meganesia (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say anything bad don't worry, just trying to look out for you yk.Cirflow (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Syriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Zoupan 20:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have discussed these Changes in talk, and considering that consensus appears to disagree with you, and that you have currently reached the Wikipedia:3RR: if you continue to edit war you are liable to be blocked from editing as per Wikipedia policy.Cirflow (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not entered any discussion. I have not broken 3RR, nor have you properly cited Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I will have to report you the next time.--Zoupan 20:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion going on right now, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Christians_(Middle_East)&action=edit&section=3 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syriac_Orthodox_Christians_(Middle_East)&action=edit&section=4 Cirflow (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain:, you recently blocked Cirflow for edit-warring. He continues this behavior. At Syriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East) he has altered referenced sentences, added bare refs, added a faulty census result, added a flag to the infobox. I have initiated discussions at the talk page, left unanswered or without concensus. Instead of holding the stable version, the user reverts to a faulty version, as pointed out.--Zoupan 21:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well Zoupan has removed citations and their content entirely, ignored consensus, and is unwilling to make compromises, while I have. I removed the flag which I put in the infobox in a later revision, and have revised the page as per our talks. And there are talks, which I specifically linked to above this paragraph.Cirflow (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either you discuss the problems issued at the talk page, without revert warring, or you start a WP:3O.--Zoupan 08:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC) These issues have been given a third opinion, if not a fifth opinion, with those different extra opinions including Mugalot, Meganesia and the Voidwalker all giving opinions- all of them not supportive of your version of the page.[reply]

August 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Circumcision. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Laser brain (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that you apparently have learned nothing from your previous edit warring blocks, and have gone right back to the same behavior. I expect that if you continue this behavior after this block expires, I shall seek a topic ban from everything related to circumcision because you are clearly unable to behave in that topic area. --Laser brain (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not engage in any behavior. I revised my edits as per their suggestions, and then when Alexbrn said I needed WP:SYNC I did so. I didn't do anything else again and didn't intend to, but i was blocked. I wish you could override the block because i didnt do anything wrong, but it doesent seem like you will. Cirflow (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2016 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not trying to edit war. In chat I stated that I would find extra sources, and then I made new edits with new sources. The last revert I did was because Alexbrn told me to WP:SYNC the information with the main article History of male circumcision. Upon doing so, I restored my edit, indicated in the summary that I synced the information with both pages and did not revert any of his later edits even once. I came back later to find Ive been blocked when I didn't even violate 3RR. Besides, I was unaware that the three reverts i already did were going to result in a block, and was not given a warning until 3 hours after my last edit to the page, which isn't fair warning as there was nothing i could do at that point. Also, If I were edit warring I would be doing reverts outright- but my edits were all different and added different information and different citations as per the summaries of the other editors. I did an edit, and when they put a reason in the summary for why they reverted my edit, I addressed it by adjusting my edit, and did a partial restore with their suggestions in mind. I was not edit warring. Therefore, I request that I be unblocked as I didn't intend to edit war. If I wanted to edit war I would've continued to restore my edits even after the warning was issued and after Alexbrn put a message in my chat addressing my revert of his edit. I was not given due notice of anything and was simply trying to work with my fellow editors.

Decline reason:

No. you have been extremely reluctant/unable/whatever to discuss your edits. Wikipedia is a collaborative project; you are expected to hash out disagreements on talk pages. The business about "my chat" also highly concerns me. Don't be surprised if your next block is indefinite. MER-C 02:18, 26 August 2016 (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.

I always discussed my edits though, and I did not mean anything bad when i said "my chat" i was simply referring to my talk page- how is that grounds to justify a permanent ban? I think this is unfair. I tried to discuss my changes with them, and i did everything they wanted me to do. They told me i needed better sources, i got a better source- reverted. they said i needed to sync information, and I did it- reverted. What did I do wrong? I have done nothing but try to collaborate, but they don't want to discuss changes or gain consensus, they revert my edits no matter what i do to fix the issue. I did everything they wanted me to do. and now you are threatening me with a permanent ban. That is not fair at all, and nor is this block. I was not trying to edit war, but you don't seem to care about that. I dont want to be permanently blocked from editing, but at the same time it seems inevitable because everything i do seems to result in punishment- even when my efforts to collaborate are very apparent. Even when I don't break 3rr I get blocked, and i don't even get the courtesy of a warning until 3 hours after Ive been banned. There is no justification for this, but it has been forced upon me sadly. Ive made it apparent that i did not intend to edit war as well, but that also is not being acknowledged. Cirflow (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't this time, your last edit to Talk:Circumcision was on the 16th of August. You need to decide on the text on the talk page. If you keep getting reverted by different editors, you should realize that the content may not belong. You're well past the point where warning for edit warring is necessary -- you've been told (and blocked) multiple times to not do it. As for "chat", this is an encyclopedia; your communication should reflect that. MER-C 04:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well nevertheless I was unaware that only three reverts in 24 hours is apparently enough to ban me. Every other ban I had prior to this was for breaking the three revert rule, and so I think a warning should've been given this time telling me that if I continued it would be considered edit warring because of the fact that the other times I was warned were under different circumstances. And I guess next time I'll try to use talk more when discussing edits, but I did use talk so I mean it isn't like I didn't try to discuss with the other editors. Many times when I use talk it does not accomplish anything either way though, and usually the conversation ends without consensus and nothing is done and my arguments are de facto unacknowledged- which is not acceptable to me. I still don't deserve this ban and feel it is unjustified considering the circumstances, and this will be the last time I'll ask: I would like you to consider overriding it. The other bans I understand- but this one is not fair due to the different circumstances surrounding it, hence why I tried to appeal my ban this time but not the others. I would like to get back to editing more productively, as there are pages that I maintain in other topic areas which are being neglected. Cirflow (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MER-C: this user continues to edit-war at another article, despite the fact that issues have been adressed.--Zoupan 02:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you are trying to do is eliminate me and my point of view by appealing to MER-C to get me banned, even though in my edit I incorporated many of your changes and arguments so there could be compromise, added more cited high quality information, fixed several typos and grammatical issues, added pictures, and User:Mugsalot and User:Meganesia support my point of view. Mugsalot even wanted to get the page deleted as a whole, but acknowledging that it deserves to be a topic just like you do I defended having the page stay up. But despite all of this, You waited until I was blocked from editing and could not argue the changes you made without being discussed- and reverted my edit, and then when I came back to discuss the changes and specifically stated that i would discuss them in talk you are trying to appeal to an administrator knowing my problems with another topic so you can try to convince him to get me banned yet again for simply trying to fix issues on an article and work with you. How Wikipedian of you...Cirflow (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You added tertiary and likewise unreliable sources ("For use of the term Aramean, see"), when there is a perfectly referenced section on name/identity. Don't add that reference. There is no need in chopping up paragraphs. If I can read right, the support is for the article to not be merged, which indeed is my standpoint. You keep on adding these lower quality refs, rephrasing referenced material, adding Athuroyo to the infobox, and adding numbers for Assyrians/Chaldeans in America (why?). If you want changes to be made, I suggest you state these at the talk page. You have been warned countless times for this edit-warring behaviour, you should take it easy.--Zoupan 00:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoupan: Your hands are hardly clean at the Syriac Orthodox Christians (Middle East) edit war, so I find it a bit inappropriate that you are here trying to get Cirflow blocked for the dispute. I've protected the page since both of you are edit warring. I expect discussion to ensue on the article Talk page, and further edit warring is liable to result in blocks for both of you. I also find it quite curious that the Yet Another User 2 account was created on 8/23, appeared randomly to continue your edit war when you were about to break 3RR, and then disappeared the same day. @Cirflow: As MER-C mentioned above, you are required to engage in discussion instead of repeatedly pushing the same contested content hoping it will "stick" if you keep altering it. --Laser brain (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: ...how are they dirty? I am not trying to get him blocked, but to change his ways. You did just now imply that Yet Another User 2 (talk · contribs) is my sock account.--Zoupan 01:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well in talks the other users all established consensus that the page should stay, and that Syriacs are an Assyrian group with unique features and identity which deserves its own page, although this also happens to be in line with my views on it so it appears to be me POV pushing, when it is simply a result of consensus. User:Meganesia User:Mugsalot and User:The Voidwalker can all vouch for me on this though, and the discussions which have already discussed and decided upon all of these issues which Zoupan continues to push indicate this as well.Cirflow (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to User:Laser_brain, I am not trying to edit war when I restore content with alterations. By altering it the next time I restore my edit I am simply proposing a compromise or solution based off of the other editors concerns in the edit summary, and then if the conflict still cannot be fixed through my revisions on the 2nd or third revert I or they will go into talk to discuss it, as simply adjusting my edit based off of their reason in the edit summary to save the time of discussing it in detail so that things move more smoothly for everyone didn't work, and the talk section is the logical next step in conflict resolution, as wikipedia policy indicates. Then if it cannot be fixed through talk then it will go onto getting other editors opinions, then the arbitration committee etc etc etc.Cirflow (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Skanderbeg into Kastrioti family. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

.

for clarifing, Chaldeans are not Assyrians, Chaldeans is nation recognized by all laws, including the the Iraqi constitution, so you do not have the right to abolish my edits on Wikipedia, so I hope you abide Wikipedia laws, thanks --FPP (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improving chart at Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction

This article is the most-viewed page for cannabis issues in the US (~1,500 views/day). I think we can streamline it to make it less clunky and more intuitive for readers, especially now that we have state-specific articles for all US states. Your feedback is invited: Talk:Legality_of_cannabis_by_U.S._jurisdiction#Changes_to_chart.3F. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cirflow. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Cirflow. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing population numbers without new sources

It should be obvious that this is a bad idea. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Doug Weller talk 11:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more explicit - if you keep adding unsourced material, I'll report you to WP:ANI

I note that you didn't even respond to me, just restored the unsourced material. You've done this on several articles recently. Doug Weller talk 11:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erbil

I haven't reverted you there again because your figure is approximately correct. However, there is a source for it in the Erbil city article and I'm asking you to add it. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barware - last chance, please either leave it or find a source

for "equal dispersion". Doug Weller talk 14:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Van - messing up the article & unsourced

Do you read edit summaries or look at an article after you edit? Your edit ended up on top of the lead. And it's not sourced, there's no such figure. There were two evacuations 3 years apart and even if there were figures that added up to yours, many of them could have been the same people. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced population figures at Nineveh Plains again

You've given no source for your 2018 figures even after I reverted you. Doug Weller talk 14:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at House of Hasan-Jalalyan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Cross-article WP:TENDENTIOUS editing; 1) adding unsourced content 2) using non-RS sources 3) not using edit summaries, 4) Warned ad nauseam. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now what is this for?! Cirflow (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As examples, this edit used Facebook, which fails WP:RS, and another source which whether or not it's ok didn't back the text. Then there's [1] which added unsourced text, and I haven't checked the sources yet for [2] but they had better back your addition. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've ignored the above. You've used a source that doesn't support the claim (I've read the source).[3] You shouldn't assume that a source from another article was used correctly or, as I've found too often, hasn't been somehow moved (maybe by deletion of something that it actually did source) so that it no longer backed the text. You've used a blog as a source.[4] Why shouldn't I block you? Doug Weller talk 19:03, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dough Weller, User:LouisAragon is engaging in edit warring at Artsruni removing cited content.Cirflow (talk)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Artsruni dynasty. Wikaviani (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of my edits are cited so I dont know why tf you seem to think I am disrupting wikipedia. I have been on this site for 4 years- I do good work here and you people do nothing but criticize my edits. Not one person has given me a medal or award for imporving this projects pages and yet I still do it. You stated these conflicts by arguing over the validity of my Anthropological Hemshin Citations written by experts in their fields. What did I do wrong except defend my additions? Tendentious editing is your accusation but I find that what I did is in fact naught more than wikipedia:goodfaith edits and not liable for your litanous reverts because they are all C I T E D. It is illegal to remove cited content without justification- so stop edit warring! Cirflow (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"What did I do wrong except defend my additions?"

First, stop edit-warring. Second, read this. Third, take your concerns to the talk page and discuss the matter with others instead of acting like a WP:WAR editor. Hope this can help you to find an answer to your question.---Wikaviani (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will discuss this in Talk then. Additionally, however, I have conceded to Aragons demands in regards to parts of my revisions, so you cant say I am edit warring if I am adjusting the content through cooperation. Cirflow (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" I have conceded to Aragons demands in regards to parts of my revisions, so you cant say I am edit warring if I am adjusting the content through cooperation"

Obviously you don't, per this, this and this. this is edit-warring and as far i can remember a good reason for a block.

"Ok I will discuss this in Talk then"

Well, perhaps a bit too late.---Wikaviani (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well for 1 I didnt break Wikipedia:3RR, for 2 in those reverts I did I adjusted the content as per his suggestions, and for 3 the material Aragon removed is cited material and so is not allowed to be removed and so I am not violating the rules in any way by restoring the content.Cirflow (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I have been on this site for 4 years" and "Well for 1 I didnt break Wikipedia:3RR, for 2 in those reverts I did I adjusted the content as per his suggestions, and for 3 the material Aragon removed is cited material and so is not allowed to be removed and so I am not violating the rules in any way by restoring the content"

How an "experienced editor" like you can be so much ignorant of the wiki rules ?

You should maybe ask an admin about that, i'm ready for a good laugh. Please read this, i quote, in case you fail to check the rules properly : "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." End of discussion.---Wikaviani (talk) 03:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! - You successfully deleted my well cited paragraph of information! You must be so proud aint ya? Ill restore it soon enough when this is discussed on the talk page. Cirflow (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about an edit of yours

See WP:RSN#Is Middleeasteye.net a reliable source and does it back this text? Doug Weller talk 10:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted the data to be in line with consensus in that talk page you opened Cirflow (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Your recent editing history at Artsruni dynasty shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a 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 your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page 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 three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
- LouisAragon (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion (Resolved)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - LouisAragon (talk) 02:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Svans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Chechen and Dargin

Armenia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Akkad

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assyrian people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jazira (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has been lifted, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This block can be lifted by any administrator if you make a binding personal commitment to provide a properly formatted reference to a reliable source for all new content you add. You must also promise to use accurate edit summaries, and you must promise to communicate with your fellow editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize that my ability to reason is weakened by the fact I’ve reached the end of the line in terms with which Bans are concerned, as I have accrued an undue level of bans from specific articles that put me in this situation not related to what has permanently banned me, I must therefore make a Binding Commitment to edit properly as I recognize that the way I edit isnt always adherent to wikipedias rules and It has somehow resulted in my being permanently banned. I love the project enough to continue regardless of the restrictions put in order to ensure I do not disrupt pages. However, the way I edit makes it so it is infeasible for me to edit to the scale I once did, and due to the risk It is unlikely I will gnome anymore because of the multiple minor errors I fix not necessitating summaries, but I do understand how my edits that re-paraphrase which sometimes eliminate prior cited content can be dangerous, or how my rapid fire form of edits in which I do multiple small revisions instead of one each time can cause server overload due to saved copies of the pages. What concerns me is what I should do when the existing page has no source, as has happened, and for articles that I can’t find sources for but have information available to add anyway or that that will result in article stagnation if these restrictions are as permanent as my current ban is. I request instead for these restrictions to be phased out if I behave after 1 year. Cirflow (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said “lets discuss it”, but haven’t unbanned me despite my acceptance of guilt in the manner of how I edited wikipedia and accepting the ultimatum given as per it was given. I said I would condense my edits into fewer to save the Project storage space, have helped write articles over 4,000 times and have written two Dozen other ones, and have been here for 4 years editing topics and fixing editors mistakes while honing my methods of editing, only to be cut to my knees by Pro-Circumcision Editors, Chaldean and Aramean Nationalists, as well as trolls and persistent sockpuppeters. I am a disorganized editor sometimes, but its not right for the project to cut me down. User:Meganesia, User:Mugsalot, User:Tumadoireacht: I need help in order to save my account and reputation. Please advocate for me and tell about the good I’ve done here on multiple articles related to Human rights, persecuted people groups, European states, and Miscellaneous topics. Cirflow (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Ultimatum is that I am not sure how I can cite a typo revision... Cirflow (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I agree with your proposal, and am willing to work with you. I am not going to be able to cite every single edit as it would be redundant for spelling revisions and gnoming, but I will add summaries and for content that is in need of citing like statements and new additions I will do it

Decline reason:

There are two problems with your unblock request: first what I should do when the existing page has no source, as has happened, and for articles that I can’t find sources for but have information available to add anyway or that that will result in article stagnation: this shows you don't understand WP:V, which is our most core content policy.

Next, you seem to have a battleground mentality that other editors are picking on you and that you need to be unblocked to stop them from destroying Wikipedia or something of the sort. I haven't looked into these claims, but the language you use is highly concerning: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and when you seem to be saying that you have been targeted by a campaign of editors without any proof, well, that is concerning and suggests to me that you don't understand how to work well with others. Any future unblock request will need to address both of these issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2018 (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.

Your GA nomination of Syriac Orthodox Church in the Middle East

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Syriac Orthodox Church in the Middle East you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Unban request

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).

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

Request reason:

As User:Cullen328 stipulated in order to allow me to redeem myself as an editor, I am willing to make a binding personal commitment to edit as per the policies outlined. After taking a wikibreak, I feel confident in being able to edit collaboratively. I would like to continue focusing on my work writing and fixing articles related to persecuted Middle Eastern Christian minority groups, and from college I now comprehend why it is important to cite correctly.

Decline reason:

I see that you have been editing while blocked. This damages the credibility of your commitment, and I am afraid without that to rely on your original block must stand. AGK ■ 22:33, 28 October 2018 (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.

You said above: "What concerns me is what I should do when the existing page has no source, as has happened, and for articles that I can’t find sources for but have information available to add anyway..." - can you please summarize what you would do in such situations? Huon (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source to back up the information I wish to add. For noncited information, I am to remove uncited information that already exists, and then discuss the issue in talk if I am told not to do it by being reverted.Cirflow (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Administrators, this is now a {{checkuserblock-account}}. AGK ■ 22:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The project has betrayed me. After saying you will “discuss with me”, it seems you’ve screwed me. I guess all I am to the project is a spammer then, and everything I’ve written is now moot. Thanks a lot wikipedia. This is my final message to the project. All my citations, and all I’ve done to help is now considered trash in the eyes of the world thanks to your misguided actions. Free encycylopedia, the thing I spent hundreds of hours as charity will now on my application if looked up be seen as a blocked account. Thank you for rewarding me for all of my service, and thanks for blocking me indefinitely for all the work I did even after I said I would follow the rules.

I did not edit evade like you accuse me of I have other people who live on my network. This is insulting to me aa a 4 year long editor! Cirflow (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final unban request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

This is my final unban request, as I said I am not going to make anymore messages to the project out of feeling betrayed by User:Cullen328s fake offer to unban me, and User:AGKs second ban after accusing me of avoiding my block when I live on a network with a few other people. If I wanted to avoid the block I would just do Wikipedia:CLEANSLATE either way. The way you’ve falsely accused me and ruined my ability to use this as charity for my college application is devastating to both my reputation as an editor and my personal life now, and so I request my third and final time to be unbanned exactly as Cullen stipulated.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This is my final unban request, as I said I am not going to make anymore messages to the project out of feeling betrayed by [[User:Cullen328]]s fake offer to unban me, and [[User:AGK]]s second ban after accusing me of avoiding my block when I live on a network with a few other people. If I wanted to avoid the block I would just do Wikipedia:CLEANSLATE either way. The way you’ve falsely accused me and ruined my ability to use this as charity for my college application is devastating to both my reputation as an editor and my personal life now, and so I request my third and final time to be unbanned exactly as Cullen stipulated. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=This is my final unban request, as I said I am not going to make anymore messages to the project out of feeling betrayed by [[User:Cullen328]]s fake offer to unban me, and [[User:AGK]]s second ban after accusing me of avoiding my block when I live on a network with a few other people. If I wanted to avoid the block I would just do Wikipedia:CLEANSLATE either way. The way you’ve falsely accused me and ruined my ability to use this as charity for my college application is devastating to both my reputation as an editor and my personal life now, and so I request my third and final time to be unbanned exactly as Cullen stipulated. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=This is my final unban request, as I said I am not going to make anymore messages to the project out of feeling betrayed by [[User:Cullen328]]s fake offer to unban me, and [[User:AGK]]s second ban after accusing me of avoiding my block when I live on a network with a few other people. If I wanted to avoid the block I would just do Wikipedia:CLEANSLATE either way. The way you’ve falsely accused me and ruined my ability to use this as charity for my college application is devastating to both my reputation as an editor and my personal life now, and so I request my third and final time to be unbanned exactly as Cullen stipulated. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Cirflow (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]