Jump to content

User talk:Algirr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

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

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

Learn more about editing

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

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

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! SuperMarioOdyssy101 (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you) Algirr (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Algirr! Your additions to Ba'athist Syria have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Ba'athist Syria has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Diannaa (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't copy material from elsewhere

[edit]

Hello. I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. Prose you find online, in books, in magazines, and in newspapers is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the copyright policy of this website to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. The Wikipedia copyright policy and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. --Diannaa (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GS alert

[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is a problem? I am added collage of photos for that topic, and I did not vandalize this page. I thought that Wikipedia rules allowed editing of articles. Algirr (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh, Okay Algirr (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war infobox infobox image

[edit]

By replacing the map in the infobox, you have reverted the work of another editor. Your edit was challenged and reverted but you reinstated it here, less than 24 hours after your initial edit, contrary to WP:1RR. I suggest you self revert and gain a consensus at the TP before reinstating your collage. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My work was also cancelled. If anyone is interested in this map, they can always go down to the bottom of this same article where they will see it. Algirr (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

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.

M.Bitton (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not break any rules or engage in vandalism. I was trying to help expand the article. I added more and different photos of the conflict to help people better understand the conflict from the beginning. Algirr (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am expanding the article - you are canceling this and telling me something else about what I should respect? You did not even leave information about it being part of the Arab Cold War (of which it is a part, according to the corresponding article in that same Wikipedia). Algirr (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did break a rule (by adding unsourced content to it) and, contrary to what you're claiming, I'm not telling you something else. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:INFOBOXES. M.Bitton (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I propose to remove the function of adding several photos from Wikipedia if it cannot be used. And I propose to remove the ability to add information about what larger conflict one specific conflict one is part of. Otherwise new users get confused - the function exists but it cannot be used. Algirr (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Western Sahara conflict. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. M.Bitton (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

prohibit editing on a free editing site - sounds brilliant)) Algirr (talk) 01:58, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you're edit warring over infoboxes across multiple articles should tell you something. M.Bitton (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what you mean? I try to do article about Sahara conflict and 15-year long war bigger, I did. You cancelled it all.Yes , I am edit conflicts and infoboxes, because it is why wikipedia mean - Ability to redact and expand article. Algirr (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem icon Your edit to Central Revolutionary Investigation Department has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that this is protected by copyright? What kind of nonsense is this? Algirr (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The document is marked as "© Copyright Amnesty International Publications 1981"; "All rights reserved". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it is very old document, created decades ago Algirr (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright has not expired. It will not expire until 2051 at the earliest. See this chart. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:10, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Algirr, a good portion of this edit added very closely paraphrased text from this source. It was published in 2009 and has no indication it is in the public domain or otherwise freely licensed, so you should assume it is copyrighted. Copyright is taken seriously on Wikipedia; please insert text in your own words and use short quotes when necessary. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also doesn't say anywhere that it's licensed, and if it's not written anywhere, it shouldn't be considered as such. This is no longer my mistake or problem. Algirr (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Creative works are automatically copyrighted even if it has no copyright notice due to the Berne Convention. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources: "If a work does not have a copyright notice, assume it to be under copyright-protection." ObserveOwl (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will know it for future. Algirr (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yemeni civil war (1994), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Bayda. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Militarism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syrian coup d'état.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I know, just i need a link which will send reader to the place where is all Syrian coups will be Algirr (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Military Committee has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Military Committee. Thanks! Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Revolutionary Investigation Department moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Central Revolutionary Investigation Department. 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 for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris talk! 01:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 1984 Syrian coup attempt has been accepted

[edit]
1984 Syrian coup attempt, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

CitrusHemlock 12:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ogaden War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M47.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will fix it later, thanks Algirr (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Military Command Council has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Military Command Council. Thanks! 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 23:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks) but most of the sources I have using in this article is links on sites. It don't have pages, it all on the same "page". And those words that I did not quote, for the most times, refer to the links already attached later. Algirr (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Sultan Yacoub, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page M48.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

okay, thanks. Algirr (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Military Command Council has been accepted

[edit]
Military Command Council, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:05, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen

[edit]

Hello, I saw that you recently created an article about the Military Command Council, the North Yemen junta of the 1970s. To further enrich this topic, I have a suggestion: It would be a good idea to write an article about the June 13 Corrective Movement, the 1974 military coup that put this junta in power. I hope you liked the idea, keep up your good work. Vrostky (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is good idea which will expand the number of articles about Yemen and provide new details about the history of this country)) I can't say how soon I'll make this article, but I like the idea and this moment will definitely come)) Algirr (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vrostky, i am done with that) it is here Algirr (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I will proudly translate this article to other versions of Wikipedia in the future. Btw, I suggest you make some improvements to the article about North Yemen's Military Command Council. For example, if possible, you could add a section about council's formation, such as its members. I checked Arabic sources and it seems that this military junta was also called the "Leadership Council", but I'm not sure about this information. I found a source that suggests the council was abolished on 22 April 1978 1. Vrostky (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i will enjoy to see my topic on other languages, thanks) Yes, if we have more references, I will do improvements with MCC article, and thanks for your link) Algirr (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, I will add information about member of an MCC, if I will found sources, which I don't sure founded yet Algirr (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Assadism

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Assadism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
nice work on the article FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
wow, thanks! Algirr (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1RR

[edit]

Please note that by making this revert, you broke the 1RR restriction in place, which requires you to wait 24 hours before making another revert. Also, your collage is not compliant, as the policy requires separate images and does not allow united ones. Quetstar (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy allows for merged images, as evidenced by their use in other articles. Algirr (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arab Cold War. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You in Edit war too. "Other editors" who is this? almost all (except 1) times the rollback was done by you. Algirr (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon 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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Algirr reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: ). Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am answered there Algirr (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article) and Draft) for copyright violations.
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 ~~~~}}.  Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Salah Jadid was picked up today by Copypatrol; while your edits to the article weren't a direct copy and paste, there was considerable overlap (Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing) with the cited source; log into Copypatrol and click "iThenticate" to see it. I looked at your other edits to the article and found close phrasing to other cited sources, including Asad of Syria: The Struggle for the Middle East and the journal article "The Neo-Ba'th Party of Syria". Unfortunately, I find myself needing to block you given your previous block and history of warnings. If you want to be unblocked, you need to commit to not from copying from sources in your future editing and demonstrate a better understanding of copyright. User:Moneytrees/Copyright blocks contains some advice on appealing this block. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it for an indefinite period? Firstly, this is, secondly, everything taken from the books is taken from the open library "jstor" Algirr (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and I did not violate any copyrights, all information was taken from open sources that were indicated. Algirr (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a source being accessible online and it being free to copy from. If a source is free to copy from, it'll usually clearly indicate that it's in the public domain or has a Creative Commons license; as far as I can tell, the sources you cited are under copyright, unfortunately. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t copy it, I translated it into my native language and then wrote what I needed, alas, by hand.
Be sure to remove any other links to authors like Patrick Seal because they are still there. Algirr (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is, after deleting 90 percent of the article, I can’t even see what it all looked like or save it at least for myself? Algirr (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course it can overlap, I (and all another people) have to get the information from somewhere. With such formulations i can invent the information yourself, there will be fewer problems. Nobody blocked me before. Did I understand correctly: I need to commit not to edit the article or not to leave links to the information when editing? Algirr (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that you're editing an article or that you're linking to your sources, you haven't done anything wrong on that end. The issue is that the text you are adding to the source is copied from sources; outside of wikipedia, something like this is more commonly called Plagiarism. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't copy from there, I just rewrote it, including using a translator - that's the point of using information in that way. Plagiarism would be if I awarded the content entirely to myself, but I didn't do that. Algirr (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you rewrite the text, there's still enough overlap for it to be problematic. I'll provide some side by sides of what you wrote vs the source to illustrate what I'm saying:
Source: The regime became hated and estranged from much of the Syrian people. The main opponents to the regime were the traders and members of the middle class, who were economically affected, and also the religious such as the Ulama and Sunni Muslims, who objected to the regime's policies against religion
Your addition: His regime became hated and alienated by most of the Syrian people. The regime's main opponents were merchants and members of the middle class, who suffered economically, and religious figures such as the ulama and Sunni Muslims, who objected to the regime's policies against religion
Source: A number of ex-army officers now also held key positions; most of them belonged to a clandestine group called 'Military Convention' which had used 'Trojan horse' tactics within the Ba'ath party's civilian body.
Your addition: A number of ex-army officers now also held key positions; most of them belonged to a clandestine group called "Military Convention" which had used "Trojan horse" tactics within the Ba'ath party's civilian body
Source: Initially, the Soviet Union was cold and hesitant towards the new regime but the Syrians, fearing that a lack of open support from one or other of the super powers would make them vulnerable, decided to acquire Soviet approval through delegations and pro-Soviet declarations, and, indeed, the Soviet leadership eventu ally agreed to take Syria on as an ally.
Your addition: Initially, the Soviet Union was cold and hesitant toward the new regime, but Jadid, fearing that the lack of overt support from one superpower or another would leave Syria vulnerable, decided to seek Soviet approval through delegations and pro-Soviet statements. And indeed, the Soviet leadership eventually agreed to take Syria as an ally
Usually only a few words from the source are changed. Even if an edit isn't identical to the source, it can still be plagiarism. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that means it is translated basically the same way as it is written in the text. Algirr (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that even if the text had been significantly changed but its essence remained the same, the claim would not have gone away. Algirr (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, translations of a copyrighted work are still under copyright. I only noticed the edit because of its overlap with the source; it can be worded differently but still convey the same meaning and keep its essence. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 18:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that means this information simply can't be used?
The last times I tried to formulate the text in a different way, I still got a warning Algirr (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
can you at least return 50,000 of the deleted text so that I can rephrase it later? Algirr (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can email it to you, if you're ok with that. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing has some tips on how to avoid overlap in your work and your sources. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you can, but please, divide the text same way it was before your deleting ("Relations", "Domestic/external Policy", etc) Algirr (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and also write me here please when you done sending text to me Algirr (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've done so now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have message on Wiki that you wrote to my email. but I can't click on it. And when I go to the Google gmail site, I am don't have your message too. Algirr (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably in your spam/junk folder. If you have a Wikipedia notification about an e-mail, that means the e-mail was sent. You can't view the e-mail on Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, its not there Algirr (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no. I am found it, thanks. Algirr (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Algirr, if "I am found it" is your current level of English, please allow me to suggest that editing a different Wikipedia would be a good idea and getting unblocked on the English Wikipedia is unlikely without making good edits in a language you're more familiar with for a while. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly use a translator. Thanks of course, but this tempting offer doesn't interest me - the English Wikipedia is the most developed in terms of existing articles and the like.
I didn't understand how you connected my blocking with my level of English. Algirr (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, if you use a translator, you should not edit the English Wikipedia. I mean, a lot of your edits have tons of grammatical errors that even a child would detect. Quetstar (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? It's strange. Well, if you make such a conclusion, then I assume you saw my edits and read them, but instead of correcting grammatical errors "that even a child would detect" you preferred to delete a single collage or map in the infobox. Algirr (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts

[edit]

Hello Algirr, I saw your email-- you can still create and edit pages in your user space (like at User:Algirr/draft/Salah Jadid, for example); pasting what you sent me into there might make reviewing and editing it easier for both of us, if that's alright with you. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 02:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could this have been said earlier?) Algirr (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure if that was what you wanted. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you talking about. Of course wikipedia redactor for text copied from Wikipedia will be better for me. Algirr (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well, I pasted it there and fixed all troubles Algirr (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I need to send its text to you? Algirr (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reviewing it now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my draft which you sent to me? Algirr (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hafez al-Assad. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? You provoked this and you're still saying I'm involved? Algirr (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on South Yemen. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of your spam? if you didn't notice we had a discussion Algirr (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hafez al-Assad's cult of personality. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from South Yemen into Corrective Move. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I left links to the material there, the same as they were in the original article Algirr (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak Arabic?

[edit]

If so, it would be helpful if you read the books on https://www.alinaser.com/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%A4%D9%84%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%AA so we can expand those articles quicker 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my great regret and despite my attempts to learn it, I unfortunately cannot speak, write or read Arabic, sorry(( My grandfather from Syria but I am itself born and lived in Russia Algirr (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen, Hello again.
I will probably never be able to edit this damn site normally and calmly, so I have a big favor to ask of you. You are almost the only person with whom I have interacted more or less normally and you are certainly a great expert on Yemen. I would do what I am asking of you myself, but due to my permanent bad position on the site, I will most likely never be able to calmly do any of this. I understand that maybe you are busy and maybe you have seen most of what I will show you, but I would like you to someday take up the comprehensive improvement of some articles - I want to send you sources of information that I have long accumulated for myself. I will be very grateful if you take them on and will be very glad if you find them useful for yourself and your projects. Among them there may be very useful information for you, such as the number of reserves of the South Yemeni Armed Forces.
Will you take my sources on? Algirr (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not allowed - please see WP:PROXYING. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I can't even share my sources? Algirr (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't mind getting some free books to read, and ill definitely not add content he wrote to articles. Algirr used to do some really constructive editing on Yemen-related articles, and it is a shame seeing him getting blocked every few days. @Algirr you really need to stop thinking that talk pages are for debates. If there is a content dispute next time, then please take it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then what the hell are discussion pages for? If I try to reach a consensus on an article page, I get banned, if I try to reach a consensus on a user's discussion page, my arguments are completely ignored and my topic is deleted. My opponents don't even get to know the topic properly, but the blame is always on me. Algirr (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is for exactly that. You need to start an WP:RFC on the talk page for there to be a consensus. Also, user talk pages are not for content disputes. The WP:DRN is going to decide which argument is stronger and will find a middle ground for yall. Also please don't call other editors as your opponents. I really advise you to follow WP:CIVILITY 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I came here to make a great contribution of my knowledge and not to read thousands of boring lectures and then be banned because my words were misunderstood. Apparently, I was wrong.
Okay, not opponents, but who? What should I call people who disagree with my opinion and don't even compromise with me? Algirr (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I don't know, but for SOME REASON (by a completely amazing coincidence) my intuition whispers to me that this action won't help and I'll be banned again for somehow inappropriately formulating a 5-word message or daring to question the reputation of users who have more edits than me. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if even for this particular message they chop off my limbs or make a show of shooting me right on this site. Algirr (talk) 05:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, nobody's banning you, or is chopping your limbs off, if you follow the stuff I told you above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes-Yes, of course "not" Algirr (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon 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. Skitash (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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.
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 ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we done here. Moderation simply doesn't care about counterarguments and the fact that THERE WAS A DISCUSSION, YOU LISTEN, THERE WAS. HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION, THE LAST WORD WAS MINE. And in my opinion, this blocking is simply unjustified, bastard behavior on the part of the moderators, ignoring ANY counterarguments and a banal abuse of their power. Algirr (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Algirr you dont have to shout or attack anyone. It's only a 24 hour block. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with it being a 24 hour block. I have a problem with it being completely unjustified and showing the disgusting attitude of the admins, who didn't even try to check the topic's discussion page or respond to my counterarguments out of decency, just ignoring them and blocking me. Algirr (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You "discussed" it for less than a day. And why is the last word yours?
Regardless, you were edit warring. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And why is the last word yours?
Ill answer that: I went to sleep, that's why his comment was last 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had no way of knowing whether you went to bed or not) that's why I don't think this is an excuse for the administrators' actions and it can't be held against me Algirr (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and by the way, you even now not answered to me there Algirr (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Algirr You were blocked for breaking the Wikipedia:3 revert rule and from the warnings that I'm seeing above, you clearly knew, or at least should've known, about its existence. Also, I have nothing more to add to that discussion, I am still not convinced by your argument. You should start an RfC regarding the usage of that image in the place of the army image. Or you could wait till we finish writing the South Yemen article, and after that, we will discuss every image used in that article 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:59, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange. If I make changes and they are cancelled - it's only me who is to blame and only I broke the rule (like in the article about South Yemen). If someone else makes changes and I cancel them - it's still only me who is to blame and only I broke another rule (like in the article about the fall of the Assad regime). It's a surprising pattern, but in all these cases my changes were resisted by administrators who, for some reason, were not warned that they had broken something and EVEN MOREOVER, were not blocked. I have no idea what the RFU is, I don't understand idiotic and complex terminology and thousands of abbreviations, but as far as I understand, making changes to popular articles is a fatal mistake, because at any moment a moderator will come running and cancel everything to hell. Okay, let's do without discussion, so be it, since this is punishable here by almost the death penalty. Algirr (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I repeat once again, the discussion took place and ended with my words, I had no way of knowing whether you went to sleep or were convinced by my arguments, just as the administrators could not know this, but for some reason they are always right. Algirr (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
4 hours and 43 minutes is not a sufficient length of discussion. 16 minutes without a reply is insufficient to assume consensus by WP:SILENCE. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah? Well, wow, do we need to stretch the discussion out over a couple of years for it to be "sufficient"? Well, overall, I'm not particularly surprised that there are such nuances. Algirr (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... First I was accused of the fact that there was no discussion, and this became the reason for the unjustified ban. Now, after the ban, you admit that there WAS a discussion, but for some reason it is somehow incorrect and still justifies my blocking.
The discussion ended with my words, in any case, as you have already been answered, which means I had the right to put my damn image. But some administrators have a tendency to get into all the disputes and heat them up by also canceling edits, without even properly checking whether there was a discussion. Algirr (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
dude this isnt about us targeting you you just did a bunch of edit wars
its literally a day long its not like you've been blocked on all projects forever. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 17:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know you at all and I didn’t say anything specifically about you. I have already answered who did what Algirr (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop being rude please? anyone is allowed to comment in whatever discussion they want 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me where I was rude again? Algirr (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Assadism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the administrators are now not doing their favorite deletion of photos in articles, but deleting my responses on my own discussion page? Damn, how suddenly my comments disappeared) Algirr (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon 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. Skitash (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the administrators are now not doing their favorite deletion of photos in articles, but deleting my responses on my own discussion page? Damn, how suddenly my comments disappeared) Algirr (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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.
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 ~~~~}}.  EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why the administrators are now not doing their favorite deletion of photos in articles, but deleting my responses on my own discussion page? Damn, how suddenly my comments disappeared) Algirr (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, nothing surprising. Again, as always, the Non-Administrator is to blame and only he bears the punishment. Algirr (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are elected and trusted by the community to resolve situations like this. Deal with it. Quetstar (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have already noticed that no one tried to question their brilliance and beauty. Including you - after all, it is beneficial for you to have a person among the administrators who will support your deletion of photos and content Algirr (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arab Socialist New Man. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how I can have a dialogue on the article discussion page if you constantly delete it? And how can I have a dialogue with you if you simply remain silent in response to my messages and then delete my messages? Algirr (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG (which I recommend you read), a topic only warrants its own article if it's received significant coverage in reliable sources. What you've cited is a handful of sources that mirror each other and repeat the exact same information, all ultimately tracing back to a WP:FRINGE concept used in a single government-sponsored magazine. I also think you should stop edit warring in other articles and attacking other editors that disagree with you. Skitash (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash Can you specifically point out where I attacked this person? Also, he broke the rule and made two retractions in less than 24 hours on an article about Baathist Syria. I seem to remember you banned me for that. Algirr (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"because of people like you," "appease your manic desire to delete," "you are lying," and "I hope you will calm down, otherwise I will be forced to write a complaint" are all personal attacks. Skitash (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash , no, it's not them.
"because of people like you", those who constantly delete content and articles, which is a completely constructive description of the user.
"appease your manic desire to delete", but what's personal about it? It's true that this person deleted most of the edits and did not expand it.
"You're lying", well, yes, it's true, he's lying. He justified deleting photos by saying they were "unnecessary", and now he's started to erase something about copyright, which was previously unheard of, and which is fine.
And the last one is completely absurd, well, yes, I hope that he will calm down and stop constantly deleting, otherwise I will really write a complaint against him, I have legal grounds for this. Algirr (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir Could you please have a look at this? In addition to repeated personal attacks, they've now stated "I will really write a complaint against him, I have legal grounds for this" which seems to cross into WP:LEGAL territory. Skitash (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir, I urge you to be reasonable. I have already responded to all the claims about alleged personal attacks, in response to which @Skitash decided to remain silent and turn to you. Besides, this is not a threat but a warning. I might as well accuse Skitash of threatening to block me. Algirr (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EvergreenFir, moreover, during my argumentation about his edits in the articles, @Skitash simply deleted the entire topic without an answer, arguing that his talk page is not suitable for this, although all the edits were made by HIM, and he continued to do the same, supporting the user @Quetstar in all deletions of my edits. Algirr (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash why you don't answering? Algirr (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Quetstar. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Skitash (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show me what personal attacks I used? Algirr (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ba'athist Syria. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skitash No, I am not. Algirr (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash What is the reason for deleting information in the article about Arab Deterrent Force? Algirr (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I made a compromise with this person, and you answered me like this. Algirr (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely no compromise at all. Quetstar (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No compromise - this is a description of your actions to delete everything you don't like. I deleted some of my own photos to my detriment and returned some that you liked. Algirr (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Quetstar, by the way, I am almost forget. some impudent person dared to insert photos into the infobox of the article about the Arab Cold War. I hope you are seriously concerned about this issue and will soon remove this outrage?) Algirr (talk) 00:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Revolutionary Investigation Department moved to draftspace

[edit]

An article you recently created, Central Revolutionary Investigation Department, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra I am added more sources. Please check it here Algirr (talk) 23:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Central Revolutionary Investigation Department has been accepted

[edit]
Central Revolutionary Investigation Department, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.
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 ~~~~}}.  The Bushranger One ping only 23:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This and this appear to indicate that you are considering legal action against other Wikipedia editors. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while these stand; to be unblocked, they must be retracted or clarified that you are not taking legal actions. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I already answered many times that these are not threats but warnings. With the same success, the user Skitash repeatedly threatened to block me, why didn't you block him too? Algirr (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not surprising at all. I filed a complaint and had the right to do so, in response I was blocked, as usual it's not any Skitash or Quetstar that is to blame but only me) very fair and equal Algirr (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pls tell me, how I can explain that these are not threats but warnings if stubborn opponents insist on the opposite much louder than I do? Algirr (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    and btw yes, I have another account, The Algirr, but it just on my phone, you can block it. I think I did something with the names and instead of one account I have two Algirr (talk) 23:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference betweeen a legal "threat" and a legal "warning" is WP:WIKILAWYERING. Either way you're not allowed to operate on Wikipedia as long as it's outstanding. If you meant you were going to file a report on AN/ANI, you used a spectacularly unfortunate choice of wording - if that was your intent, you need to clarify that you did not intend to take any legal action off-wiki against other users and agree not to use such wording in the future. Also, your alternate account has been blocked - note that you did not block evade using it (a point in your favor) but it should have been marked as your alternate account using {{User alternative account}}. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    of course I didn't plan to, how do you imagine this? I'm shocked how some administrators and Skitash in particular like to come up with their nonsense. Algirr (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, you probably didn't get it. I'm not worried about the alternative account, and it may remain blocked - I made it by accident. Apparently, I entered a different name (somewhere there is The, and somewhere not) and unsuccessfully created another account (this one on the laptop and blocked) on the phone). Believe me, I didn't mean to do it, it happened by accident. Algirr (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "file a complaint" - what's wrong with this wording? It briefly and clearly describes that I'm going to file a complaint against a Wikipedia user for being uncooperative and uncompromising Algirr (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem wasn't "file a complaint". The problem was "legal grounds". On-Wiki complaints have nothing to do with legality. Any reasonable person seeing you mentioning "legal grounds" would take that as a legal threat. Now that you have clarifed this, the block is lifted. However I strongly suggest you take rsjaffe's suggestion and read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; and also seriously consider simply moving on. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't mention a legal grounds, whatever that means, I just said that I have the right to file a complaint against an uncompromising person. I still don't understand how, in your opinion and in Skitash's opinion, I could even organize a trial for him or something like that in reality, I don't even know anything about him.
    Well, I try to move on, but this stubborn person cancels everything, even if I try to come to a consensus with him - he simply ignores it and continues to do the same thing he did before. And I don't understand what will happen next with my complaint? Will anyone even consider it? Algirr (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's easy to confirm you did mention "legal grounds" at least twice "I have even more legal grounds for filing a complaint against you" [1] and "I will really write a complaint against him, I have legal grounds for this" [2]. You might not have intended this to be interpreted as using some outside legal process but mentioning the word "legal" is always likely to result in that.

    Also depending on where you live, it's often not that hard to sue someone or file a complaint with the police or other parties. E.g. in some places, filing a complaint may be as simple as filling out a form. Very often nothing will come of these. But all this is besides the point anyway.

    Legal threats are not acceptable even when the person making them will never follow through or even if they have no idea how to do it because we are worried about the chilling effect of such threats. Since you didn't intend this as a legal threat, take this as a lesson on how to better word your comments in the future to avoid any such implication rather than trying to argue what you did is fine because you had no idea how to actually take any sort of legal action.

    As for the rest, as others have noted you're not likely to get anywhere other than earn a longer block if you keep saying stuff like "stubborn person cancels everything". Ultimately a dispute involving only two people often hits an impasse hence why WP:3O is a simple form of WP:dispute resolution.

    However I'd note that from my PoV in the case of Arab Deterrent Force which you brought up at AN, there hasn't been any real attempt at discussion from either of you since Talk:Arab Deterrent Force has not been touched for over 14 years. Note that editor talk pages are primarily for discussions about an editor, they are not the place to resolve disputes over the content of pages which should use the talk pages for these pages. Notably, other editors watching the article or article talk page might not even be aware there has been any discussion.

    Nil Einne (talk) 07:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, yes, I had legal grounds. Wikipedia allows you to file complaints, but it seems to be very selective in following them through to the end, but overall I understood what the reason for the shaking was. Well, yes, I see that no one follows through with my complaints... I raised this issue on his discussion page, arguing that all the editorials are his doing. Algirr (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I understand, no one cares about my complaints, unless they end up blocking me?... Algirr (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If your complaint has little merit then you shouldn't expect anything more. For example, you complained about an administrator despite the editor not being one and having given no reason to think they are one. As already noted, an editor issuing warnings is no indication they are an administrator. Likewise you complained about an editor deleting a discussion from their talk page, but they're perfectly entitled to do this per WP:OWNTALK. As I noted in my other comment, the solution to this is you should not have tried to hold discussions over article content in editor talk pages, instead use the appropriate article talk page. With such basic errors in your complaint, is it a wonder nothing has come from it? Without needing to look at your edit history, it seems clear you're very new here with little understanding of how things work. But unfortunately you also seem to be having problems accepting the guidance of more experienced editors. Nil Einne (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This was noted only after I had already filed a complaint. Yes, I have problems, because this "guidance of more experienced editors" is mainly engaged in deleting something and sometimes does not even know what it is about, but deletes it anyway.
    Well, I came here to contribute and give more knowledge, not to read thousands of boring lectures Algirr (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne In general, I complained about the inability to negotiate and intransigence, and not about what you listed (what you listed were examples), but overall OK, I already understood your position. Algirr (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for refusal to heed feedback and the battleground conduct displayed in a pretty minor dispute as in this disruptive and over the top post after promising to "try to move on". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
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 ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare Are you seriously guys? That is, BEFORE I was banned for not making a consensus, NOW I was blocked for speeding up the process of coming to it? Are you kidding me? Algirr (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't promise this, I said that I tried to do this but one stubborn editor constantly interferes with me, deleting both my edits and my articles Algirr (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you should be happy that your block was reduced from an indefinite one to just a 1 week block 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reduction, but a replacement of one for another. The first "indefinite" block was because my words were misunderstood, but now for other reasons, and just as illogical in my opinion. Algirr (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Assadism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Skitash (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Hafez al-Assad's cult of personality for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hafez al-Assad's cult of personality 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/Hafez al-Assad's cult of personality 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.

Skitash (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you are blocked, you should only use the talk page to appeal your block

[edit]

If you continue to discuss articles expect your access to your talk page to be withdrawn. Doug Weller talk 08:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would disagree that talk page access is restricted in this way. I don't believe there is a consensus to this effect, although there are a lot of opinions. There are some limits, like soapboxing, "over"-venting, etc., but this isn't that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dennis Brown Wikipedia:User pages says "Users who are site-blocked or site-banned should rarely use their talk pages for anything other than unblock requests or conversation leading toward such a request. Though blocked or banned users retain much of the wide latitude afforded to all users in their own user space, they may lose access to their user talk page if they violate policies (e.g., WP:PROXYING) or otherwise continue acting disruptively.". I see the above as proxying. Doug Weller talk 14:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was told that I can share my sources Algirr (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, you've done that. Please wait until your block expires now. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will try if no one writes to me and there is no need to answer them Algirr (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proxying is directly saying "add $x to $y article", so I would disagree. I think you have to be careful to NOT scold someone for using their talk page constructively, and being strict to use it only for unblocking, as a block is supposed to be to stop their actions, not stop them from all participation in discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      But I didn't said something like that, I just shared sources... Algirr (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my admin work, I don't deal much with blocked editors except for vandals but I was always instructed that the only use of a talk page if an editor is blocked is to make an unblock request or discuss the block. I'm surprised that you have such a different opinion, Dennis. But I don't think presenting a list of sources is proxying either. Liz Read! Talk! 04:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Algirr, I hope you can make an attitude adjustment. I saw your comment about listening to "boring lectures" but I just want to point out that even those of us who have been editing here for 10+ years have to take responsibility when we make a mistake and also accept that we can be wrong. If editors with so much experience can have that humility, you should try to embody that as well. Your time here will be longer. Being belligerent and bossy will only result in further blocks, not successful editing. If your goal is contributing here, then you have to learn to better collaborate even with those you disagree with. None of us is your "opponent", we are just fellow editors. See you in a week and sorry for the lecture. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I do not understand what my mistake is. That I wrote a comment that helped to end the discussion? Or that my edits are deleted without good reason, and the evidence of my edits is ignored? I have already been charged, I think, with almost everything, and perhaps soon I will also be charged with organizing Al Qaeda terrorist attacks or something like this, because I somehow worded my message incorrectly. And can you show me please where Skitash admitted his mistakes?
I would also like my time here to be longer, but I doubt that this is possible.
Usually "colleagues" cooperate, compromise or come to an agreement with someone, but so far I have not noticed any of this in the users of Skitash or Quetstar, who literally opposing almost every my edits and canceling almost every of them. Algirr (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz, see, this "Colleague" AGAIN deleting everything without consensus, without agreement with anybody, he just doing what he want. He doesn’t listen to anyone, he doesn’t negotiate with anyone, he just brazenly does everything because he can, without any clear explanations but with amazing stubbornness. Nobody punishes him for his intransigence, but me - please. Algirr (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While perhaps there might be reasonable argument over your previous comments this is definitely not something you should be using your talk page for while blocked. It would be okay to bring up someone's behaviour to try to understand why you were blocked but this editor isn't but that wasn't the focus of your comment. Instead it's mostly just complaining about another editor's behaviour however that's not something which concerns you while blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I bring up it, and in response they blocked me, without even letting me write all the arguments.Well, yes, I complaining so that this person is deservedly blocked at least for some time. Algirr (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(you're unblocked now) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen ok, since i'm unblocked i have a legal right to ask: how are my edits worse than skitash's edits? Algirr (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to question his image removal on that article's talk page. Do not add the images back till y'all reach an agreement. I'll be watching that page and the discussion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will feel free, I hope I won't be blocked for another week for this?
Also, this person doesn't want to negotiate or even listen to me, it seems like he deletes my edits simply on principle. Algirr (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You wont get blocked if you follow WP:BRD and WP:CIVILITY. We'll see about the second part of your message tho 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure such people will definitely find a reason to block me Algirr (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

some recommendations

[edit]

Algirr, please stop bringing up your block history. Just get over it and focus on building an encyclopedia. I noticed that most of the edit wars you get into are related to controversial image additions and changes. Please keep your focus on writing content rather than adding/changing images in articles. Also, you should read MOS:IMAGES and specifically MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:06, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many, yes, because here is no reason for deleting my edits but they deleting it. How do I build an encyclopedia if my edits are cancelled (even if they don't concern photos)? Algirr (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
by discussing the edits on the talk page. And if the other person doesn't want to discuss, then report them to WP:AN/I 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I did this, and in response I was blocked.
for a week
Algirr (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen, okay, so this human reverted edit for the third time in a row. I would have been banned for a week for this, but probably nothing will happen to him? Algirr (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are unjustified and have been reverted by multiple editors. I don't understand why you're continuing to edit war as soon as your fifth block this month came to an end.[3][4][5][6][7][8] Skitash (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you decided to take edits from a bunch of different articles and sell it as one?
My edits are justified and I always wrote a justification, unlike you, because unjustified removal of content and images is basically just your business, not mine. Algirr (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it’s clear that you don’t understand, but it’s profitable for you to do this . Your edits are disputed by ME, but that doesn't bother you either. Algirr (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash Now you are trying to justify your 3 rollbacks by shifting everything onto me? Algirr (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Algirr @Skitash start. a. new. discussion. in. the. articles'. talk. pages. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen This person is incapable of negotiation, he is not going to negotiate with me or even listen to me and my arguments. Algirr (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
did you even try to start a discussion with him? 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:02, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well, yes, at least twise Algirr (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abo Yemen important note: in one of them his position FAIRLY won, but I was banned for my attempt to speed up the discussion process Algirr (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Your edits are disputed by ME" Based on Assadism's edit history, at least two other editors oppose your changes. I really think you should consider what other editors have suggested here on your talk page. Skitash (talk) 17:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excluding you, just one. This is not a personal attack but a fact, but you constantly interfere in articles and cancel changes, demanding to "stop the war of edits", although you yourself are inciting it. Well, it’s understandable that you think so, because you want to end this conflict and stick to your uncompromising opinion. Algirr (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 Hello. Algirr doesn't seem to have learned anything from their numerous blocks. Skitash (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you have nothing else to answer with since you are calling for help from a third party, which is not surprising - it’s not the first time. Algirr (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23 Look for yourself, the man doesn’t know how to answer me and is hoping for your help, but I ask you to be reasonable. Algirr (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
skitash literally monitors my every change, as if he has nothing better to do)) Algirr (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Algirr, I'll second the advice Abo Yemen has offered you and add a couple of useful links:
    1. See WP:BRD, a recommended technique to avoid edit wars
    2. See WP:DR, for the methods available for dispute reolution
If you follow the above processes and remain civil, in particular by not personalizing issues or treating wikipedia as a battleground, you are unlikely to ever get blocked again. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are trying to "destroy" me, just like on the battlefield.
Well, nothing will change, my arguments, position and point of view will continue to be ignored Algirr (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare, please share this with skitash too, i'm sure he doesn't know something like this exists Algirr (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty confident that an experienced editor such as Skitash would already know about these guidelines but, in any case, I have pinged them and so now they would have become aware if they weren't. Please focus on content from hereon and don't personalize the discussions. Abecedare (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Abecedare. Yes, I am aware. Unfortunately, despite your reminder and five recent previous blocks, Algirr seems unwilling to stop with the edit warring[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] and personal attacks.[16][17][18][19][20] Skitash (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash Well, just as you clearly aren't going to stop provoking new edit wars, ignoring other people's opinions, pushing through your own point of view, and a complete unwillingness to negotiate. But judging by everything, you offset all of this by having more edits, including senseless deletions of information and photos. Algirr (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare then it's even worse, because even knowing these policies he never used any of them. I didn't personalize the discussions, I put forward facts based on Skitash's disgusting attitude towards me. Algirr (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continued incivility and battleground conduct (latest examples, [21], [22]) despite numerous attempts to guide you along a more productive path..
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 ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  Abecedare (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I swear to god all this could've been avoided if only you acted in a civil way 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:51, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Military Committee of the Ba'ath party has been accepted

[edit]
Military Committee of the Ba'ath party, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 09:29, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Algirr&oldid=1294539862"