User talk:Aemilius 04

October 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to History of Syria has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: History of Syria was changed by Aemilius 04 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.915558 on 2017-10-14T20:42:27+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Suha, Hama, 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. Operator873^CONNECT 21:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Aemilius 04! Thank you for your contributions. I am TonyBallioni and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dragut Revisions

Hello,

Can you please provide a reference to support the changes you have made?

Thank you, --Cdfi (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cdfi: I have provided the source with a link, you can check it in the article. cheers ! Aemilius 04 (talk) 12:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can see it now very sorry I made a mistake. --Cdfi (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Syrian League 1st Division) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Syrian League 1st Division, Aemilius 04!

Wikipedia editor TonyBallioni just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please add sources to the article so that readers can verify the content.

To reply, leave a comment on TonyBallioni's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Al-Bitariyah) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Al-Bitariyah, Aemilius 04!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please note that the title should generally only be bold upon first usage in the intro.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Homs into Timeline of Homs. 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 moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: I always mention the original article in the edit summary, you can check. Aemilius 04 (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing one such edit summary, but not for the two edits that the bot picked up. You should actually be doing it for each edit, and providing a wikilink to the source article please. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Bit-Zamani) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Bit-Zamani, Aemilius 04!

Wikipedia editor TonyBallioni just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good article! Consider nominating it to be featured on the main page via the WP:DYK process.

To reply, leave a comment on TonyBallioni's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: cheers ! notify me when you post it on the main page. Aemilius 04 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. I'm not nearly technically experienced enough to figure out how to do that, other admins who are more experienced than me do it :-). The WP:DYK process is a way for users to nominate new content they have created recently to be feature on the main page with interesting facts, and anyone can nominate their own articles. You can see some examples from what I've done in the past at this page. If you have any other questions, please feel free to reach out to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of CadAPL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: bro !! I am blocked for no obvious reason here, can you please help ?! Aemilius 04 (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your ping, follow the instructions on the block template NinjaRobotPirate left if you want to appeal. I'm not familiar with the case nor do I know what has happened, so I will not be unblocking. An uninvolved administrator will review your appeal, and likely consult with the blocking admin. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Being blocked after only three weeks for no reason !! ... retired !! Aemilius 04 (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

DYK for Sophia (robot)

On 13 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sophia (robot), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sophia (pictured) is the first robot to become a recognised citizen of a country? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sophia (robot). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Sophia (robot)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Aemilius 04 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Initially, I wrote that I won’t contribute further to this site as some admins can block people for fun like what happened to me without providing evidence of any misbehavior. However, I did not complain and stopped writing, but I noticed that some of the articles I created are deleted because I am accused of sock puppetry ! This user GeneralizationsAreBad gave himself the permission to delete whatever he likes such as Laqe, Hindanu and Kadmuhu, since I am blocked and cannot do anything ! Is there any sane person here to investigate this madness ?! I only want my articles to stay and I don’t want to create another account just to keep the articles. Aemilius 04 (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See below.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:32, 13 November 2017 (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.

NinjaRobotPirate, I checked that user which you claim that I am related to ! I found that he/she had created new accounts so you are afraid that I am one of them ! I sometimes edit English article and literally translate (with same references) from other languages (wikidata) here in Wikipedia, so it is not my fault if you may find some same edits as he/she (or one of the sock puppets) may write in other languages. However, I found that the last couple of edits caused the problem in which I used the data provided in Arabic for some Syrian actress who had not their date of birth ! Hope to hearing from soon ! Regards. Aemilius 04 (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously threatening to create more sock puppets in your unblock request? Unbelievable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: Where did Aemilius 04 say that? Fundamentally, I think we should unblock - I came across this account after they created Sophia (robot), which as you can see is on the main page today. So at the grass roots level, they are "here to write an encyclopedia". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I only want my articles to stay and I don’t want to create another account just to keep the articles." And, no, we should not unblock this account. It's an obvious sock. For example: [1], [2], [3]. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So the guy edit wars with you and you don't want to unblock him. Hmmm, you sound WP:INVOLVED. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie, this is obviously the same user as LeoHsn (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) based on some of their quirks on talk pages, and that user was blocked for personal attacks and harassment with their talk page revoked based on an ANI discussion that was closed quickly but was also pretty clearly headed in that direction. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a flying toss if they've got 30 zillion socks, I care if they can write encyclopedia articles. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A user who posts this or this or this from the main blocked account is editing in a way that is incompatible with Wikipedia, which is why the original block was issued. Also this lovely post from one of the other socks, closely followed by this bigotry show it wasn't limited to one account. This user would need to convince the community that the behavior in that regard won't occur in the future. The original block was for concerns that their attitude was incompatible with WP:5P2 combined with the gross incivility and bigotry that their interactions with other editors displayed: given those concerns, a block for socking is appropriate until the community is satisfied that the concerns won't be issues in the future, at which point a standard offer could be considered. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2017 (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).

Aemilius 04 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

user:NinjaRobotPirate You have zero evidence that I am the same person with that guy !! You only claim that I used the same data which I brought from the Arabic version ! If I am that same person, I could easily edit without using an account to eventually get blocked just for one edit !! It seems that person gave you hard time in that you are so desperate to delete any edits he wrote even even if it is right ! That is sad ! user:TonyBallioni you tag me with an account who speaks about Islam, then you claim that such person should not be here ! First, who said that I am that person?! Second, who gave you the authority to block people if they criticize Islam ?! This Wikipedia is for articles and anyone can edit so who made this platform a liberal far-left one in which conservative views are banned and slandered with bigotry, meanwhile you are not different from a totalitarian tyrant who dictates what should people say or not ! Yet again, you tag some random comments from different accounts then claim it is me and even tag my ip with the checkuser ! No wonder that such unfairness makes people create socks to their main accounts ! I mentioned that I need my main account then you said that I am just threatening to make socks ! I can conclude here that the reason of my block is the claim that someone wrote about Islam and TonyBallioni believes that Wikipedia should only have anti-conservative/“bigots” pro-Antifa/liberal agenda ... in that no matter what you write, you should appease the liberal admins and if you can be Islam spoiler, anti-Trump that would be better ! Now you would claim that I personally attack not only certain ideologies but TonyBallioni as an admin ! How dare I? I am not that CadApl or any of his/her socks .. believe it or not ! I came here last summer to let others read correct info, I ask you to judge me with this account because all the lame accusations are false and have zero evidence ! Aemilius 04 (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There's technical evidence and massive behavioral evidence you are the same person. This is now a checkuser block, so non-CUs cannot unblock. Given your appeal above and the similarities to the other accounts, I am declining this appeal and revoking talk page access. You will need to make further appeals either through UTRS or by contacting the arbitration committee TonyBallioni (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2017 (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.

November 2017

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.

— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically indistinguishable to each other:
Hamath-Zobah 17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Aemilius 04 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
Confirmed also
EastWest (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
1. History fanatic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
— Berean Hunter (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

TonyBallioni (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Gillian Zinser for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gillian Zinser is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian Zinser until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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 until the discussion has finished.

Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]