Haydar Pamuk

December 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Battle of Shusha (1992), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 10:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The reason given is more than credible. You use selective sourcing and Wikipedia should take note. The aim should be to make Wikipedia as accurate and complete as possible. You contributions are often not from reputable sources. They often include historical lacunas and gross biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydar Pamuk (talk • contribs)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 13:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has high standards and credibility. Yet CuriousGolden, Solavirum, have posted historical inaccurate, biased, and poorly sourced information. This undermines Wikipedia's credibility. The most damaging of these errors are the historical lacunas. In reinstating a more detailed and sourced account of the conflict, this poster has been threatened with being a block. It is wrong to use Wikipedia as a platform to advance false and incomplete narrative. What is at stake is historical truth. Please pay close attention to sourcing and language. Please stop deleting my sourced improvements and investigate more closely. Consider sanctioning CuriousGolden and Solavirum for their systematic historical revisionism.

Your recent editing history 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. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

AA2

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 Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. 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.

Brandmeister^talk 12:31, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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:Haydar_Pamuk reported by User:CuriousGolden (Result: ). Thank you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 14:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for WP:3RR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  User:Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haydar Pamuk, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Haydar Pamuk. 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. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GirthSummit _(blether) 18:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)