User talk:Yakbul

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).

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

Request reason:

Dear User:Bongwarrior

Unfortunately, ı had to make multiple edits while defending the latest proper version of Xiongnu againts the multi-vandalisms of a anonymous user, it was also tiring for me. I request you to review the revision history of the Xiongnu where you can easily see that my edits are all grounded on very well citations also my edit summaries are quite reasonable. But, the counter-edits made by this user 2607:F358:21:BD:695B:A324:9C0B:B29B (who also taken part on edit war and didnt get banned ?) have no bases, edit summaries are grounded only on accusations and very obviously edits are based nothing more than a aim to highlight the Iranian word and push the Turkic word into the background. Even, i dont get unblocked again, i strongly believe that my damaged edits by this ip, has to be reconsidered by you or admins or by any other objective point of view because i made many researches and found 2 very important resources about the subject from books published by Harvard University Press and University of Bristol with their ISBN Number's. It will be a pity if we dont benefit them...

Regards.--Yakbul (talk) 05:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

What you described is called content dispute. If they end up in dispute, users are expected to pursue dispute resolution instead of continuously reverting. Because all your editing history here consists of nationalistic edit warring, the indefinite block appears justified. Max Semenik (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2015 (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.

Yakbul, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Yakbul! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! 78.26 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Xiongnu. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]