User talk:SonofJacob

SonofJacob, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi SonofJacob! 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 TheAafi (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Vrats dasht for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vrats dasht, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vrats dasht until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Zakarid Armenia, you may be blocked from editing. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Chechil 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. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kevo, it is interesting enough how I'm being warned from you about the whole "edit war". Didn't we already use the talk page? from what I remember, you left my arguments on seen. SonofJacob (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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.

Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Vrats dasht. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only warning about personal attacks

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. El_C 13:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: was this attack on Wikipedia? If it was, please can you provide a diff link to the relevant edit, as this user seems to be in denial of this personal attack over at this discussion. - Falcon ^talk 18:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Speedcuber1: [1][2] El_C 18:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I wouldn't call these personal attacks. They are simply asking another editor to stop. - Falcon ^talk 19:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Speedcuber1: I deem the "corrupting + [smiley face]" exclamation as well as accusing an editor in good standing of "vandalizing" to be attacks. You're free to disagree, but it's a stance I am prepared to enforce with sanctions, if need be. El_C 19:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Sorry if you feel what they said was a personal attack. I disagreed because I'm not aware of how it could of been a personal attack. Since you have backed yourself up, I agree with you, as I think you know more about this than me. Speedcuber1 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am deeply sorry if I get caught up by my emotions for a bit sometimes, although it may sometimes happen I do not like being accused of pushing a nationalistic agenda because it is not true. I am on the wikipedia to fight bad-faith lies. But since I am educated mostly on the Georgian-related topics and work on the following, people view me as some kind of "Nationalist". SonofJacob (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Falcon ^talk 18:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I know which issue exactly? SonofJacob (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SonofJacob: The start of the discussion can be seen here. As you have already commented on the discussion I'm sure you know what the issue is now. However feel free to use this link to get to the discussion whenever you want, for example if you want to make a comment. - Falcon ^talk 18:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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/SonofJacob, 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.

- Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem having sockpuppet investigation applied to me :D SonofJacob (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Zakarid Armenia. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has been found that you have been using one or more accounts abusively, have edited logged out to avoid scrutiny, or have recruited friends, family or coworkers who share your point of view to support you (see the meatpuppet policy for more information). Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publicly and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:56, 20 September 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Mr.Callanecc, I know you are very busy as it seems but I have to talk to you about the stuff I've been going through. Basically, with due all respect you've made a wrong choice. Both about banning Mukvani16, an user which is actually a friend of mine, and also, about blocking me for "edit-warring" in Zakarid Armenia now If you do not mind, I will shift my talk in here. SonofJacob (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for tendentious editing regarding Armenia including meatpuppetry, making ad hominem comments and persistent edit warring.

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 Yamla (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:If you wish to return to editing Wikipedia I'd suggest that it will likely only be allowed with a topic ban from topics related to Armenia. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC) . So it's okay if other people show their bias you are saying? the worst thing being that even "bias" has some truth but the people I am a "rival" against in editing do not even have reliable sources. you have blocked me and banned my friend for an unvalid reason. I didn't even "recruit" him. He asked openly by his own will for me to teach him how to register on Wikipedia. let's see what kind of stuff usually happens when you let editors like @:Kevo326 Look at the history of THIS ARTICLE. There is a following sentence that says "Gugark was part of the Satrapy of Armenia". The funniest thing is, after my correct version of the text gets reverted, (which is sourced by Strabo, the ancient traveler) I revert it again. Then when he does it again, I warn him for unintentionally deleting my information without a valid reason. I also have left my message to his TALK PAGE explaining every single thing in a detailed way being wrong about his claims and there's nothing alike written in the source cited to the exact claim. After that, the day I got blocked, (and he knew that as well) he reverted my claims saying "it is there" while it is NOT there.. He basically took advantage of me getting blocked by you When he KNEW there was no such thing. But at the end, it turns out that I am the one who does "Tendentious editing regarding Armenia". I also explained the part of "meatpuppetry" that he is actually a friend of mine and I didn't educate him on the subject. The only thing he did was to revert an ILLIGITAMATELY closed Afd. (the person called lazyges breached 3RR) Regarding what? Regarding the topic that is taught by what you may ask? the whole country of Georgia. Also it is notable that my POV is not a POV which was created in a biased way, but my POV is shared by the WHOLE EDUCATION SYSTEM OF A WHOLE COUNTRY. Accordingly, I didn't "recruit" him to do that. Everyone in my country who has a basic knowledge (knowledge which derives from medieval sources and not biased people who make their own studies.) knows that there is no such thing as "Zakarid Armenia". I also got saddened about the fact that you, my kind sir, didn't even check what Afd was about, I was hoping for YOUR help to review all the arguments I've had and to compare it to what they had to say in return. I am guessing the "Ad hominem" reason of yours is caused by me saying "hay axperner" to a person which means "Armenian brother". never knew referring to them in a warm way was considered as "Ad hominem". Also, edit-warring as I've mentioned in Zakarid Armenia was started by @:lazyges not me. and it can be even seen HERE but you do not want to acknowledge the fact for some reason. SonofJacob (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC) :SonofJacob, I don't think you're likely to get a response easily from anyone else, as most are fairly done with the situation, so just a few quick things related to policy, and some advice: **It is generally acceptable to roll back edits made by indef blocked accounts, especially when they relate to the reason they were blocked, even if this would otherwise violate 3RR (WP:ER states this explicitly). **I made one procedural edit (mandated by closing the AFD) and three reversions, making it impossible for me to have violated 3RR; closing the AFD is not a reversion, nor is removing the tag. **On Gugark, you made four reverts within a 24 hour period; although the first two were different sections which are equivalent to each of the last two, that argument is somewhat iffy and unlikely to fly. Note that 24 hour period is meant to imply a literal 24 hour period, rather than the calendar day (although waiting this out to the 24:01 mark, or something similar might also get you blocked.) **:Kevo327 came closest to violating 3RR on Gugark, although he stayed within three reverts, even by expanded argument (reverting two different sections with his first two edits and both with his third). **To be fair, you are correct in saying we cannot prove that Mukvani16 was a meat puppet; we cannot show that you recruited him, or are him, however, the burden of proof is closer to a "preponderance of evidence" than "beyond a reasonable doubt", especially with single-purpose accounts. Mukvani would likely be blocked regardless for being a single-purpose account, and you would likely still be blocked for tendentious editing. **Per but my POV is shared by the WHOLE EDUCATION SYSTEM OF A WHOLE COUNTRY this argument has not been accepted by Wikipedia, ever to my knowledge. Education systems usually make their country; for instance, I don't think any teacher ever told me that the invasion of Canada during the War of 1812 was anything bad; I'm sure Canadian schools have a different view of the matter. **:Wikipedia has sanctions related to certain topics (listed at WP:DSTOPICS), many of which are related to countries, specifically because of feuds between countries, such as Armenia and Azerbaijan, and pretty much all the ethnic hatred hotspots (Balkans, South Asia, etc.) **Closing an AFD by a non-involved, who isn't "under the cloud" (more requirements may be found at WP:NACD, previously linked) has generally always been seen as "legitimate", but not always "correct"; meaning that it may get reversed in the subsequent discussion, at Wikipedia:Deletion review (previously linked), or even theoretically WP:ANI (previously linked), if there was other problematic behavior involved, but on its own wouldn't get the editor who closed it in trouble unless it was a pattern of behavior. Notably, per the Closures may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; sentence(s) of NACD, you wouldn't really be allowed to reopen the discussion yourself. Technically, edit warring over the inclusion of the tag doesn't do anything but potentially confuse the bot, as the discussion itself is still closed. **In some personal advice, I'd recommend against long, ranty posts on talk pages; even subconsciously I think people are more likely to side with people who get their point across in a few sentences rather than a few paragraphs. I don't have the admin powers related, but from what I've seen with such blocks, you're very unlikely to get unblocked unless you can clearly articulate you understand what you did was wrong, and how you won't repeat the behavior; it might be a few months before an admin would accept, and I think Callanecc is right in saying it would likely involve a topic ban from Armenian subjects (essentially an agreement accepting an instant block if you edit related to that topic). In addition, I'd suggest you limit the length of that appeal. As I said earlier, you have passion, and it would be nice to see that passion directed toward encyclopedia building, rather than rants and POV pushing. **Lastly, again I can't confirm this, but it does seem like you didn't really read people's responses to you, or else you should have seen when I pointed out my username is I-azyges, not L-azyges. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC) First and foremost, I want to apologize for misspelling your name and take my time by thanking you for commenting on this talk page. Also, I mainly joined Wikipedia for the exact reason to show off my point of view regarding the history of Armenia and Georgia. Notably I want to say that everyone has their own opinion as well. What I did at Zakarid Armenia was show my point of view too, which is generally accepted by my country's education system as well. (which can be proven by the medieval sources unlike the POV of Zakarid Armenia supporters.) Speaking of the other sources though, there is still highly likely a chance that such authors as George A. Bournoutian may show some bias about it because they are writing story of their own country. Just like some Georgian "scholars" think that Ctesiphon was besieged by Georgian forces in 131AD. Putting all this aside, some of my talk may have been influenced emotionally since I see a clear bias against my country for which I also want to apologise. (sometimes, it is not even bias though... Because may I say, they are purely lies in rare cases of course.) I am also sorry for not responding for some time, since we are all humans and have some real-life stuff to do. Per but my POV is shared by the WHOLE EDUCATION SYSTEM OF A WHOLE COUNTRY this argument has not been accepted by Wikipedia, ever to my knowledge. Education systems usually make their country; for instance, I don't think any teacher ever told me that the invasion of Canada during the War of 1812 was anything bad; I'm sure Canadian schools have a different view of the matter. Yes but if we combine them both, I am not the only side who has 'bias'. I am not saying im myself biased since what I write I THINK is 100% correct. But please, answer me... Has anyone ever made a counter-argument to whole of my written paragraphs of arguments in the Afd page of Zakarid Armenia? If there's been ONE such case. At least ONE, I want to see it. Because bunch of people speedy keeping the article means that it is just up to POV pushers what to decide. It turns out, if what I said is correct, that means that it is only a matter of number of POV pushers to disclose an Afd. SonofJacob (talk) 15:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC) :I'm not disagreeing that everyone has their own opinion, just that Wikipedia requires neutrality. I feel strongly about politics and religion, so I don't edit topics related to it. Not a lot of strong opinions for most Roman and Byzantine emperors, except maybe Titus, Hadrian, and the like. I've seen a lot of counter-argument, even if they don't engage all of your points. One major thing for Wikipedia too is the reliability of sources; the sources you cited were from Facts on File (Atwood), and what appears to be a high school textbook (I do not speak Armenian but I believe it's 11th grade?), the main source cited against you was from the University of Indiana Press; University press books are generally considered gold standard, especially compared to textbooks; you also cited ancient sources under the argument that they were not biased, but this has pretty much never been true. A good part of the biases we hold towards history is based directly upon the bias of the writers of history. A lot of Emperors are described as the devil incarnate because the person writing about that period of history hated them. Truth is hard to prove in history, and even heavyweights get stuff wrong sometimes, but Wikipedia takes the approach that high-quality verified sources must be used, and are inherently right unless they disagree. In this case, if you had some university-published books for your arguments, the article could have been changed to include that verified sources disagreed on the nature of Zakarid Armenia. Wikipedia generally ignores all arguments related to content that does not have source parity; perhaps you are 100% right, but unless you have a high-quality peer-reviewed source, it doesn't really matter. :I do also think there was some manner of language translation differences; for instance in talking about vassals: Zakarids were APPOINTED RULERS by the Bagrationis, they have never been a "vassal" rulers; vassal literally means an appointed ruler who the overlord allows to rule in exchange for loyalty/some expectation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:28, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Again, I want to apologize for my late response since I was busy with my homework(s) lately. First of all, I've been through so many discussions with people I even have lost count which one you were talking about regarding the part of you mentioning a "textbook" and a University-published Indiana source. Secondly, please, just please, are you trying to tell me that an ancient historian, Strabo, who had nothing to do with both Georgia and Armenia was BIASED against Armenia? This is already getting out of hands... The history is written by victors? What do you even mean? I've brought up tons of arguments from HISTORICAL sources against a MODERN STUDY... And what's the reason of us not trusting a medieval chronicler but trusting mr . George Bournitian? Also. No, you are wrong in all senses. A country can be independent and come into a vassalage of another country LATER. For example if Georgia fell into the vassalage of the Ottoman empire, the king who had already ruled after accepting vassalage is "appointed ruler"? if we turn the tables around on the case of definition of what "appointed ruler" means you can be right in VERY RARE points. an appointed ruler might mean vassal in a chance of one in a thousand and this case is not to be discussed generally without knowing the situation. But you think every fiefdom/region/principality/princedom/duchy who had an "appointed ruler" were their own independent states? Are you seriously pushing this? SonofJacob (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC) SonofJacob (talk) 11:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined unread, WP:WALLOFTEXT. Yamla (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2021 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I am now fully aware of the Wikipedia policy and never make such mistakes. Please consider unbanning me.SonofJacob (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2021 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

The block I've gotten out of lack of my knowledge has taught me what to do and what NOT to do. So I will make productive contributions in the future and stay out of upcoming edit-warring situations. Best regards. SonofJacob (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please describe the productive contributions you wish to make, and tell how you will handle future editing disputes instead of edit warring. This will help to demonstrate the knowledge you have now attained. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:39, 24 November 2021 (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.

Hi, thanks for responding.

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).

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

Request reason:

I will avoid edit warring at all times and use talk pages instead, but if we fail to reach consensus I'll seek out for RfC. And majority of the time I'll make productive contributions regarding the history of Caucasus region and Anatolia (despite this I'll also focus on including information about specific traditional foods throughout the world.)SonofJacob (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. 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. Yamla (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2021 (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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hello, I have come back from 10 months of inactiveness. Now that I came back I wanna start editing again. also, I realize all my mistakes and it is no longer necessary for me to be blocked because: :· I will no longer make personal attacks on other people. :· I will never intend to get into meatpuppetry (even though I unintentionally did in the past not knowing it was against Wikipedia policy.) :· Will no longer tendentiously edit and avoid having edit wars and from now on start discussing in talk pages. SonofJacob (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

The blocking administrator, Callanecc, has not edited at all for several months, and in recent years has edited very irregularly, with several long gaps between edits, so it may take a very long time to get any response from them. You have already waited a long time, and I don't think it's fair to let you keep on waiting, so I am dealing with this. I am willing to allow you another chance, in the hope that you will keep to your undertaking to avoid the same kinds of problems as before. However, please bear in mind that I am very much giving you the benefit of the doubt, as, like Deepfriedokra, I feel some misgivings. I hope your editing in future will be fine, and unblocking you will prove to have been the right thing to do, but if not, you are likely to be blocked again, with much less likelihood of being unblocked. JBW (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have posted your latest unblock request inside an earlier declined unblock request. This can cause confusion, making it difficult to see who wrote what and when, so I'm moving your layest unblock request out of the previous decline that it was embedded in. JBW (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Zabaha (October 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The references do not seem to be relevant--if they are, please fgive brief quotes from the sections that prove the actual material in the article

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:Zabaha 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:Zabaha, 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.

DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Zabaha

Hello, SonofJacob. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Zabaha, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unblock discussion

@Callanecc: What do you think? Covers all the basics, but I feel a sense of disquietude. Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disquietude in what sense sir?

Glad to hear back from you. SonofJacob (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

a vague sense -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. Will I hear back from mr.callanecc soon? I hope they respond. SonofJacob (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note left on blocking admin's talk page. Recuse. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will we hear back from him soon? there's been no answer and I think I'm waiting for a whole month. Is there any way to get me unbanned by tagging other admins? SonofJacob (talk) SonofJacob (talk) 15:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]