Welcome!

Hello, Aydinyol, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you foryour contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction andGetting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page andHow to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete theWikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit theTeahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember tosign your messages ontalk pages by typing fourtildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check outWikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, orask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk)18:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop addingunsourced content, as you did onAzerbaijani language. This violatesWikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may beblocked from editing Wikipedia.You have removed a reliable source who supports significant differences between north and souh Azerbaijani languages to replace it with two unreliable sources to push your POV. Don't do that again please, or i'll have no other choice but to report you. Thanks.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}00:53, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may beblocked from editing without further warning the next time you addunsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did atAzerbaijani language.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}02:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop involving political motivations in editing Wikipedia. I read your source, there is nothing there verifying your changes, unlike my sources that fully support the fact. In addition, I can see that your are a native Persian and cannot read my sources which are in Azerbaijani language. The language that I am editing. I think you need to stop editing subjects that you are not an expert on them only to serve your political values. I will try to report you as well if you continue to add random sources that don't contain proofs about what you are editing.

Your sources are unreliable, you need to read carefullyWP:VER andWP:RS. Ethnologue is a reliable source and supports the fact that there are significant differences between north and south Azerbaijani language. Stop adding unreliable material in order to push your POV. Consider yourself warned. Regards.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}02:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is completely irrelevant. From the technical point of view, if you read my source, you can understand that you are wrong.

From an ethical point of view: The language is mother tongue and I am a linguist. I assume you are none of them. So, I would think you need to stop editing out of your expertise. Furthermore, Wikipedia is a public source. It is not your personal weblog that you can dictate your rules. Stop threatening other users.

" The language is mother tongue and I am a linguist" : your personal opinion or what you think is true are irrelevant here, since Wikipedia goes with what reliable published sources say. Now you've been reverted by another user for your POV pushing edit using unreliable sources.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}07:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thant was my ethical point not the technical one. I think it is not useful to talk to you about this as you have decided to not understand my point. I will seek a third party intervention.

You currently appear to be engaged in anedit war according to the reverts you have made onAzerbaijani language. Users are expected tocollaborate with others, to avoid editingdisruptively, and totry to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article'stalk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at anappropriate noticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate torequest temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, youmay beblocked from editing.Wario-Man (talk)03:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to start an edit war. He has put the wrong information about the subject which happens to be my mother tongue. I am just trying to correct it, but he insisting on a source that doesn't have the content that he claims.

"He has put the wrong information about the subject which happens to be my mother tongue. I am just trying to correct it, but he insisting on a source that doesn't have the content that he claims." : Since youfail to check facts and keep trying to push you POV, here is a link pointing to the source (ethnologue) :

https://www.ethnologue.com/language/azj

And here is the part which supports the current version of the article : " Significant differences from South Azerbaijani [azb] in phonology, lexicon, morphology, syntax, and loanwords". ("dialects" paragraph)---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}15:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I am giving other sources denying this point. Although, the source he is giving is a webpage (not academic source). The bottom line is that I will add my sources, he keeps his own and let the reader decide. But he cannot try to dictate his own views by deleting others sourced comments and threatening them with blocking.

Ethnologue is not a "webpage", it's a reliable source used in a great many of language related articles on the English Wikipedia. Your "sources" were a forum like random website and a paper in Azeri which does not fit withWP:RS. The more you speak about this, the more you sound like someone withWP:CIR andWP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT issues.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}15:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history atAzerbaijani language shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. SeeBRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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.Robert McClenon (talk)16:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I tried to reach a consensus with "Wikaiviani" he again removed my edit despite the fact that I let his edit to stay. He continues his unprofessional behavior.

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.---Wikaviani^{(talk)(contribs)}16:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I tried to reach a consensus with "Wikaiviani" he again removed my edit despite the fact that I let his edit to stay. He continues his unprofessional behavior.

You have never once tried to reach consensus with anyone on the article talk page, which is where the discussion belongs. Go talk about the edits you want to make on the article talk page. If you continue to edit war, you will be reported and possibly blocked.zchrykng (talk)19:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you read our talk properly, you can see that I accepted to not delete his version. Currently, he again deleted my edition. I will not accept this behaviour. Here is not Wikivivani's personal page. I will continue to edit as my claim is legitimate with proper sources.

Hello andwelcome to Wikipedia. When you add content totalk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure tosign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add fourtildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.zchrykng (talk)19:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, andwelcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedlyreverting or undoing other editors' contributions atAzerbaijani language. 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 thenormal 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 aconsensus on thetalk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to beblocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of thethree-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 lead to a block. Thank you.zchrykng (talk)19:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy onedit warring. The thread isWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Aydinyol reported by User:Zchrykng (Result: ). Thank you.zchrykng (talk)20:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continue unfair treatment of users! Destructive, biased and illogical behaviour. You delete my edit and then when I revert it, you try to block me! So arrogant! Good luck anyway

I was honestly trying my best to prevent this outcome. I'm very sorry it has come to this.zchrykng (talk)21:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly you tried? Just reverting my edits and keeping "Wikiviviani"? This is what you tried and expect me to say "yes. sir!"?

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of31 hours foredit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try todiscuss controversial changes and seekconsensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seekdispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to requestpage protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read theguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is atthe edit warring noticeboard. Thank you,EdJohnston (talk)01:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also asimilar complaint of the same issue atWP:ANI.EdJohnston (talk)02:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history atQazyan, Qubadli shows that you are currently engaged in anedit 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 thetalk page to work toward making a version that representsconsensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. Seethe bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts 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. —CuriousGolden(T·C)18:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the merits of your proposed edits on the article's talk page. It is impossible to form consensus without discussion. – Reidgreg (talk)WP:3O volunteer,14:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageBaykar Bayraktar TB2, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)21:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageMKE MPT, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL andmissing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)21:08, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageBaykar Bayraktar TB2, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL andmissing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)22:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageTAI Anka-3, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL andmissing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)02:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions toTAI Anka-3 (2). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time becauseit has no sources andit needs more sources to establish notability.I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information atHelp:Unreviewed new page.When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back.Annh07 (talk)04:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my full time job. I just started the page and gradually I am working on it. I don't think you understand the nature of Wikipedia. You basically destroyed 1 hour of my work. You can be happy about it.Aydinyol (talk)05:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your article is stillhere, it's not deleted, but moved to the draftspace because it's not ready to publish. You need to improve your article to meetnotability guidelines (by addingreliable sources), then submit for review. The draft will be published to the mainspace if it meets the requirements.Annh07 (talk)06:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who gives you the authority to go around and pushes people's article to draft. I gave reference to what I wrote. I am asking someone to intervene. I don't want to deal with you.Aydinyol (talk)09:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thishelp request has been answered. If you need more help, you canask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on theiruser talk page, or consider visiting theTeahouse.

Please help me with...

Aydinyol (talk)09:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't ask a question here, but if this involves the discussion above, you need to work out your concerns with the other editor. You don't have much experience in creating articles- the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia- and working on it as a draft and then submitting it for a review is the best way to gain knowledge and experience so that any issues with your draft are found before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. If you insist on the draft being in the encyclopedia, it will be treated more harshly as it will be assumed that you know what you are doing, and if the draft as an article does not meet standards, it could be outright deleted.331dot (talk)10:12, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it to you to do this rocket science. I have a science PhD from a top 3 university and you are teaching me how to do some quotes. Don't make yourself ridiculous. I am telling you that I made the skeleton of the page for others to conveniently work on it. I gave a reference about stuff I put. This page is not a controversial topic, so people can easily build upon the skeleton without major harm. I don't have time to waste with you guys. Do whatever you want. You can ban me if you like. I don't tend enjoy to arguing with people who are intellectually inferior to me.Aydinyol (talk)06:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits toTalk:Stepanakert could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia isstrictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies onlegal threats andcivility.Users who make such threats may beblocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels fordispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported byreliable independent sources and focusing especially onverifiable errors of fact. Thank you.BilledMammal (talk)08:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 08:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblockedindefinitely from editing formaking legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia'sguide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  WaggersTALK08:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typical silencing through blocking technic by lefties :) Who cares about this biased media. This will be another Twitter.Aydinyol (talk)09:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You haven't been blocked to silence an opinion (if anything, talk pages on the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic show a vast range of opinions on both sides), but for making legal threats against Wikipedia, allegedly on the behalf of the government of Azerbaijan. Governments don't take legal action for using exonyms for their cities: we have an article titledFlorence, not Firenze, and I don't think the Italian government minds about it at all.ChaotıċEnby(t ·c)09:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Governments do take legal actions if you use sensitive names which threating their territorial integrity. Try voting for Macedonia instead of North Macedonia and you will see how Greek government will take legal actions. But since westerners with Christian sympathy are controlling this platform, they dare to put the legal name of internationally recognised part of a sovereign country ( which happens to not be in their Christian club) for voting. This is not topic of voting in Wikipedia. You must obey the international law and change the name of this page. Sooner or later.Aydinyol (talk)10:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make threats. I said Azerbaijani government will take a legal action (not me). Like what Turkey did before. What you are doing here is illegal according to international rules and blocking a User is nothing but tyranny and silencing. Actually I want the user who blocked me ( Waggers) to be blocked for bullying and blackmailing other users.Aydinyol (talk)10:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waggers has permanently blocked me for threating for taking legal action. I said since Wikipedia is violating international law by altering a toponym of internationally recognised part of Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan government will take a legal action. I did not say that I will take legal action. I request my block to be removed and user Waggers to be blocked for blackmailing me.Aydinyol (talk)10:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page access has been revoked for your ongoing and unacceptable personal attacks on another editor. SeeWP:UTRS for your unblock options.Cullen328 (talk)07:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 07:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aydinyol. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know thatDraft:TAI Anka-3 (2), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six monthsmay be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, pleaseedit it again orrequest that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.FireflyBot (talk)22:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aydinyol. It has been over six months since you last edited theArticles for Creation submission ordraft page you started, "TAI Anka-3".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you canrequest its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.Liz^Read!Talk!22:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]