User talk: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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — CuriousGolden (T·C)  14:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

AA2
Brandmeistertalk  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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. — Curious</b><b style="color:#c29d25">Golden</b> (T·C) </b> 14:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> 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:. User:Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;per the evidence presented at 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:. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 18:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)