Wikiazeus

Wikiazeus, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Wikiazeus! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nabi Mammadov

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Nabi Mammadov, to Wikipedia. Doing so is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nabi Mammadov (May 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nabi Mammadov and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nabi Mammadov, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Nabi Mammadov for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nabi Mammadov 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/Nabi Mammadov 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

COI Message

Hello, Wikiazeus. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Nabi Mammadov, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I noticed that you recently removed content from Nabi Mammadov without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not remove COI Template again without seeking consensus of the articles talk page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Nabi Mammadov shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabi Mammadov ‎. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikiazeus! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. RegentsPark (comment) 01:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Image used at Nabi Mammadov

Please be so kind to explain why do you marked all of the photos used at this article as "own work" - at the same time you want to tell us that you do not have a Conflict of Interest. Either you violated the Copyright of those Images or you have a clear Conflict of Interest. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits and behavior in AfD discussions

First, a minor edit is when you are only doing something that does not change the meaning of something at all or add/remove any significant content. This could be fixing a typo, adding a "the" that's forgotten, adding one forgotten word, removing a duplicate word, etc. It is not every edit you've been marking as minor. Please stop using the minor edit checkbox when you are not doing a minor edit, and please use the preview tool to ensure as best you can your comments are complete before you submit the edit. Making multiple follow up minor edits increases the risk you cause edit conflicts with people trying to respond to you after you post the comment.

Furthermore, you should not add multiple "bolded votes" in a discussion to an AfD. First of all, discussions on Wikipedia aren't votes - they are based on the arguments presented, so even if you add 100 "bold keeps", it won't matter if you don't add substance. You also should not add more than one bolded word to a specific discussion - it makes it very hard to see how many different editors have participated.

Lastly, do not edit other user's comments to change their reading. Editing other users' comments is extremely limited in when it is acceptable to do so - and your recent editing of User:Celestina007's comment is completely inappropriate behavior. Repeating this sort of behavior is likely to result in you being blocked from editing that discussion, if not from Wikipedia entirely. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed your comments in that discussion this time. Please take note of these recommendations for the future. Thanks -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikiazeus. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I request that my ban be removed from my IP address. I realize that I have made some wrong and improper actions.I understood my mistake.I promise that I will not repeat these actions and I request my ban to be removed. Wikiazeus (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Please describe your improper actions, tell what you will do differently in the future, and describe the productive contributions that you wish to make. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I created a few fake accounts and wrote my arguments on the deletion discussion page, but I did not know it was against the rules. Now I know the rules and İ will do things to improve Wikipedia Wikiazeus (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

So, just to be clear, you thought so long as we didn't have a rule against you attempting to mislead us by claiming to be multiple people in an attempt to keep an inappropriate article around, that'd be fine? Come on, you didn't need to know we specifically had a rule against this to know it was wrong and you were being dishonest. Yamla (talk) 10:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand that I made a mistake,i am very regretful. I promise I will not do it again. Please give me one more chance. If I make another mistake, ban and I will not apply to remove my ban. You can be sure that I will not do it again. Wikiazeus (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. "Mistake"? Hardly. Deliberate and malicious attempt to deceive. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:23, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

My father is also a wiki editor, his projects were left unfinished because we used the same IP address and he is very angry with me, please remove the ban,İ am very very regretful, I will not make any deliberate and malicius attempts again, I apologize again.Please give me a chance,I think everyone deserves a chance,I learned lessons what i did.Thank you by advance! Wikiazeus (talk) 11:57 am, Today (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

You've been blocked for socking and are not going to get unblocked easily. Please read WP:SOCKBLOCK for what your options are going forward. RegentsPark (comment) 17:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

Also, I notice you've posted five unblock requests. If you post another, you'll end up losing talk page access. FYI. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

You and your wikipedia is trash.İ tried to speak to you politely but you forced me to speak rudely.You adminstrations think you are the Boss of wikipedia.If you weren't remove my ban why did you add ban removing template? Also if want I can re-login via VPN.I politely apologized you 5 times,also i said that i will not repeat it.If I will repeat it again you will already be banned me again. Wikiazeus (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The main reason I'm declining this is that with your block now extended to this page, there's no point in keeping the request open. But ... it still gives me plenty of reasons on its own. "İ tried to speak to you politely but you forced me to speak rudely" No, you chose to speak rudely because we wouldn't accept your misrepresentations of your behavior. Not our fault ... yours, only yours. (And that is always the red flag of the truly toxic). Honestly, whatever made you think that would work? It had a lot more to do with your ego than anything else.

"You adminstrations think you are the Boss of wikipedia " Well, in this aspect, that's exactly what we are. Someone needs the authority to exclude people who won't follow rules from the site. I mean, when you've been kicked out of restaurants or bars or whatever (and I'm pretty sure that's a when) do you tell the owners "You think you're the boss of this place!"?

"If you weren't remove my ban why did you add ban removing template?" Well, because everyone who gets blocked gets the chance to request unblock ... it hardly means they'll get unblocked. Please don't tell us you thought you got access to it because we thought you were some sort of special person and that we would attend to rubberstamping your request as soon as we saw it. (And if you concluded that our secret goal in allowing you access to the unblock request template was to cruelly torture you with false hope, well, I'm sorry but to me that says more about you than us).

"Also if want I can re-login via VPN" So after all this blather about how sincere you were when you apologized and how horrible it was of us not to sit you on our collective lap and mop up your tears you threaten to sockpuppet again? And in any event this threat will not move us ... many VPNs rely on known open proxies, a lot of which we've identified and blocked over the years (If your goal is to help us identify a few more, though, by all means go right ahead; I can't imagine you'll stay undetected for very long given your clear moth-to-the-flame tendencies).

"If I will repeat it again you will already be banned me again." We have a very low degree of faith that you will not repeat yourself, so we're saving ourselves the trouble of having to block you again. (In my experience, people who make that argument are tacitly admitting they lack the ability to completely control themselves)

And as a whole, your argument demonstrates what may have been a significant factor in getting you blocked ... an imperfect English that suggests to me that you might want to consider editing the Wikipedia in your native language instead.

Have a nice day. — Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

---

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.

Plese contact

(talk page watcher) @Omingokevin: I sincerely ask you to leave your email address on my talkpage. I need help from a knowledgeable person like you.

May 2021

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 RegentsPark (comment) 18:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #60860

is closed. Check user, so ArbCom. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)