User talk:Asafviki

January 2025

Hi Asafviki! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 14:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Asafviki reported by User:Seawolf35 (Result: ). Thank you. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. First of all, I must say that I do not have any malicious intent and I have added 4 sources that prove its accuracy. I hope you can understand that it is true from so many sources. Asafviki (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739) for a period of 72 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for being unblocked

{{unblock|reason=Hello, I understand that you blocked me because I created a lot of clutter on the article page. However, I believe that I am certain that the Azak Castle was destroyed and that the sources I have are reliable. In fact, even in the source edited by other people before my own edit^[1] (currently available on the page), it was stated that the Azak Castle was destroyed and its land was left neutral. I only tried to edit the article that was not compatible with the source and added multiple sources to support this old edited source. ^[2] ^[3] ^[4]

^ Erhan Afyoncu, A Short History of the Ottoman Empire (Yeditepe Yayınevi).[1]
^ The London Gazette, Issue 8085, Page 1
^ The London Gazette, Issue 7845, Page 1
^ Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives (BOA), Archive Documents (ADV), DVE group, Document nr. 81/1, p. 84. (BOA: Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives, ADV: Archive Documents, DVE: Document Group)

When I made my first edit, many people objected to me and said that I should open a talk page. So I opened a talk page and waited for 4 days to see if there would be any objections. When I did not receive any objections, I made my edit and said that I had waited for 4 days and that I could now make my edits since there were no solid objections. However, the user named Vbbanaz05 took back the edits with bad intentions every time. Although I told him to tell me if there was anything contradicting my source, he gave me negative answers that did not lead us to any conclusion. But this situation needs to be changed now. because it currently contradicts the source text in the article. Asafviki (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Erhan Afyoncu, A Short History of the Ottoman Empire (Yeditepe Yayınevi).[1]

[LondonGazette8085-2] The London Gazette, Issue 8085, Page 1

[LondonGazette7845-3] The London Gazette, Issue 7845, Page 1

[BOA-4] Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives (BOA), Archive Documents (ADV), DVE group, Document nr. 81/1, p. 84. (BOA: Prime Ministry Ottoman Archives, ADV: Archive Documents, DVE: Document Group)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]