User talk:Arsenekoumyk

Disambiguation link notification for January 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kumyks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adyghe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Unexperienced action

When I was "freshly green" on wikipedia, I deleted some talk om my page without even noticing it. [[1]]. --Arsenekoumyk (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shamil, 3rd Imam of Dagestan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kumyk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Kumyks into Tarki. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Diannaa. Those were mine edits originally, though I didn't know about this practice and I thank you for the explanation.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

For you to enjoy next time you decide to massively expand Wikipedia's coverage of Kumyk history, which was quite poor before you arrived :) Calthinus (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Calthinus thanks a lot!--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 10:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hello, do you write any Wikipedia pages in Arabic? ZeiiinZein —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ZeiiinZein hey, no, I do not.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Arsen

colleague, for your actions you can get under sanctions Lamberd (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

first please explain why you make vandal edits, Lamberd, otherwise you'll be under sanctions, colleague. and don't delete info, supported by major sources--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

Your recent editing history at Uchar-hadji 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 BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah instead of making these strange warnings, you should better pay attention to my request about it on Admin Requests Page. and moreover, you protected not-consented version which is the result of vandal edits. you should correct your actions--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arsenekoumyk! As you already know, I've responded to your inquiry on my user talk page and we've taken the discussion there. Just wanted to respond here so that others who read this will know where to go in order to read the rest of the discussion. :-) Best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah thanks--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 09:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Of course; always happy to be of assistance. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arsen. My apologies for my absence, life has been busy. It looks like this issue has cooled a bit but give me another ping if necessary. Lamberd indeed should work things out on the talk page, this I agree with.--Calthinus (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

If you have time, please explain where was I wrong

Hi, Oshwah. If you ever have time please explain the logics behind this decision of another admin, who preferred to close eyes on vandalism and edit warring and instead insisted that I'm violating some rules calling ,y request "nonsense". He doesn't care to answer. Also, if you happen to care about those sections, please give your admin opinion about actions here in Shamil article made by the user I reported. It's just frustrating when time on wiki goes to waste.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arsenekoumyk! It looks like Bbb23 ruled the report as 'no violation' because the user was not left any kind of warning on their user talk page for the edit warring. This is important to do, as it gives them an opportunity to stop, read the relevant policies and guidelines, and discuss the dispute properly and according to policy first. If the user continues to edit war despite the warnings given, administrative action can be considered. Please let me know if you have any more questions and I'll be happy to answer them - just ping me in your response here so that I'm notified. :-) Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Oshwah: It was far more than just the lack of warning (and the lack of notification). Even had both notices been given, there was no violation of 3RR and not enough to constitute edit-warring in the alternative. The accused user edited the article a grand total of five times: September 7, September 10, October 23, October 26, and October 29. Also, I see zero evidence of Arsenekoumyk's accusations of vandalism. As far as I'm concerned, the more disruptive user in this little imbroglio is Arsenekoumyk who has (1) made false claims of violating 3RR, (2) made personal attacks against the other user, and (3) made personal attacks against me. It's not the other user who needs to read our policies - it's Arsenekoumyk.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, thanks for answering. Bbb23 now I see your point, thank you for clearing the air at last. also, I'm sorry I made you feel "attacked personally", what I did was opposing your decision openly. speaking about the decision itself: 1) Quote from the rules of edit warring — "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." this is what happens with that editor. in the description of the matter 2) same rules state — "Once it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing admin will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute." this is how I tried to settle the matter, two times. and it doesn't matter how stretched in time it is, according to the rules of edit warring, but you keep trying to persuade even me, that I didn't warn him, while he has been warned and mentioned twice and had months to answer. 3) you keep saying there is no vandalism, but rules state: "Subtle vandalism: Vandalism that is harder to spot, or that otherwise circumvents detection, including adding plausible misinformation to articles... or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages." if you just had a look at the nature of the user's edits, you would notice that his edit is clearly under that rule. these are the reasons why I opposed your ruling, which you afterwards called nonsense. and yes, I made mistake afterwards explaining it like 3RR on your talk page, I thought 3RR counts for 72 hours but not 24. however it doesn't change the rest. the example I gave you is still a screaming one:

"let me give a clear example. After one of vandal edits he makes (all of them are the same he removes the part "of Kumyk descent", never answered on talk page) I return it (here) to consensus version adding a quote which the user pretends to ask for. The quote is clear: Shamil's "fifth ancestor — Kumyk Amir-khan, a man very famous in Caucasus". he reverted it and never answers on talk page, which I called him to again btw.--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

How about you seek conversation with me instead of reporting me

Arsene, you lost all the discussions we had and report me for "vandalising"? How about you disprove me? Are you not capabale of doing so? --Zandxo (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

you're not discussing anything, it's just hysteria. I'm really sorry I have to spend time proving anything to you, but I will, because it's how wiki wordks. I suggest you calm down and start being constructive and patient--Arsenekoumyk (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Requesting copy edit support

Hi,

Season's greetings

I am looking for proactive copy edit support/input help any of the following (So far neglected but important topic) articles. If you can't spare time but if you know any good references you can note those on talk pages.

• Islamic advice literature

Your user ID was selected randomly (for sake of neutrality) from related other articles changes list related to Turkestan

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

New Brill entry

You might be interested in this new major Brill entry.[2] You can obtain access through WP:REX if you're interested (unfortunately I ran out of subscription long ago myself). I already added it to the Further reading section of the article. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mountainous Republic of the Northern Caucasus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chechen, Lezgian and Kabardian. 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) 06:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:History of Kumyks

A tag has been placed on Category:History of Kumyks indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy 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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)