User talk:Shaushka

Hi, please stop to deform articles/categories which are related to Kurds! And read NPOV. What is this?--Gomada (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yazidis are gypsies and have nothing to do with Kurds. Also, Zazas, Lurs, etc are not Kurds according to modern scholars. That's it. Regards...Shaushka (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I[reply]

I told you, read NPOV. If you have sources that shows, Yezidis are gypsies you can show us. Otherwise stop your own POV-push.--Gomada (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you, language and ethnicity are different concepts. Today, Latin Americans are wrongly known as "Hispanics", "Latins", etc. because of their language. But in fact, they are indigenous people of South America, not Latins such as Spaniards, Catalans, Italians and so on. For instance; Kurds celebrate new year in March just like other Iranians (Persians, Zazas,...) but Yazidis' new year is in April. This is a simple example but if you want, I'll show you much more. On the other hand, there are anthropological differences too. Shaushka (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are in Wikipedia, dont forget it. I told you, we dont write articles according to your POV. You should show us sources, that say Yezidis are gyspsies. Dont forget please, Wikipedia:Edit warring is not permitted, if you cant prove with sources, you shouldnt revert or deform each articles. Read also Wikipedia:No original research. Thanks for your understanding.--Gomada (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if they are gypsies or not. I have said that, because I do not like them. But they are not Kurds, this is beyond my bias. I'll show you the sources. They are Kurdish-speaking, not Kurds. "Latin" Americans also Latina-speaking, not "Latins". They are indigenous people of South America and ethnically Amerind, Mestizo and so on. Shaushka (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, language is nothing! Shaushka (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cant decide people's etchnicty just because you dont like them. I remind you once again, this is Wikipedia. You cant decide by yourself.--Gomada (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I told you "this is beyond my bias". These are facts! What's ur ethnicity guy? Yazidi? Shaushka (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yazidis, Lurs and other wogs are not Kurds. Shaushka (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yazdânism

Do not mark Yazdânism with a {{delete}} tag again. It will not be deleted if you do. If you feel the article should be deleted there is only one way to possibly get it deleted and that is to use the articles for deletion process. Any other process will be declined. GB fan 18:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Your recent editing history at Kurdish people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Rivertorch (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. - Vianello (Talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A further note: Use of any further personal cultural/ethnic slurs, or attacks based on country/culture ethnicity, against other editors or in general, will most likely result in a longer (if not indefinite) block. This includes paranoid speculation about others' cultures. After you are unblocked, do not do this again. Period. - Vianello (Talk) 21:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rivertorch (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2013 (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#Shaushka. Thank you. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love and kisses...Shaushka (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to eat my fettuccine guys. Afterwards, I'am going to continue my "edit-warrings". Regars...Shaushka (talk) 10:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yazdânism‎

As I have told you before, adding the {{delete}} template to the article will not get it deleted. The only possible way to get this article deleted is to follow the directions at WP:AFD. If you continue to add the delete template to the article you will be blocked. GB fan 10:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. GB fan 10:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Belçim Bilgin Erdoğan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Kurdish, Dol and Turkish

Sheikh Said (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kurdish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Belçim Bilgin Erdoğan

The article Belçim Bilgin Erdoğan has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. GB fan 01:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite

I've upped your block length to indefinite, due to the ongoing discussion at WP:ANI. Your actions and make it clear that you intend to continue your disruptive behavior after your block expires. Furthermore, looking over your contribution history, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Now, indefinite doesn't necessarily mean infinite; you may request an unblock as explained in the block notice above. If you can explain clearly what was wrong with your previous behavir and show how you will be constructive in the future, it's possible that you could be unblocked. But you're going to need to show a 100% change in attitude. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change my attitude. Shaushka (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This, Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, explains how to appeal your block. GB fan 16:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's tiring. I was blocked for 72 hours but then another admin have blocked me with an expiry time of indefinite. Shaushka (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take back it? Because there is no reason for this. Shaushka (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read the discussion that led to the indefinate block, it can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive799#User Shaushka: resumed edit warring, mass reverts, and ethnic namecalling. Then you need to specifically address the problems noted in that discussion. A generic unblock request like you have posted below will never be accepted. GB fan 17:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I'll change my attitude and behavior.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 19:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

ATT:ADMINS - Shaushka's sockpuppetry is continuing

The admins on the case of this blocked user ought to take a look at the sockpuppetry that has been going on. First, after being blocked, he shows up with this: Special:Contributions/109.165.188.100 and a whole series of dynamic IPs from the same range were blocked for 48 hours after that. Then unfortunately he got some very bad advice from User:King of Hearts to make a new account for block evading. Shaushka's newest account is User:HistorNE. We know it is the same, because he admits to being the series of IPs who were blocked for 48 hours, and besides he has continued the edit wars that the anon IP left off. He denies being Shaushka, and he has refrained from editing the same articles Shaushka edited. But the intervening IPs, who are mostly listed on the SPI page, establish a clear trail of cookie crumbs between the two. That is to say: Shaushka got blocked for edit warring, then he got indefblocked, then almost immediately the IPs continued the behaviour of Shaushka, then they started some new edit wars, and finally HistorNE admits to being the IPs and continues the newer edit wars. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sock of Shaushka, admins already proved ragnes are different. You should learn not to assuming bad faith. I sent you message about category-issue and you didn't answer but just simply removed my edits, which clearly mean you aren't interested of good faith but just accusing. --HistorNE (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No admin has proved the ranges are different, and this editor knows it, but has no problems with trying to deceive others with such false statements. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]