User talk:Modern primat

hello, you can write something about me here.

you can come to main my main wikipedia account, it is better: https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullan%C4%B1c%C4%B1_mesaj:Modern_primat Modern primat (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LEADCITE

Just an FYI, per MOS:LEADCITE citations are generally not required in an article's lead section provided the content is in the article body. At Armenian genocide, this is the case -- the article's lead is an accurate summation of the body. Therefore citations are not needed in the lead. I advise you to revert your addition of the {{citation needed}} tag in the lead (as the article is under a WP:1RR, I cannot revert you again). Thanks, and please let me know if you have any questions. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello sir, you are right, i reverted my edit. thank you, have nice day, good luck :)

i just want to see sources about it, but now i understand that in first paragraphs we dont add sources. user: elli Modern primat (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Hello, I'm Darkwarriorblake. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on The Shawshank Redemption, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the successors of the Ottomans

Hi! I've recently seen this edit of yours, and while I'm pleased to see that the conversation has moved on to another topic since, I want to clarify something for your future editing.

According to a rather far-reaching consensus, both in the Wikipedia community and in the scientific world, Turkey is generally accepted as the successor of the Ottoman Empire. For sources, see the works of Zürcher and Akçam (the latter of which I'm personally more inclined to recommend to you, based on the assumption that you would want to read about it from a Turkish historian).

Despite this problematic edit, however, I'm very pleased to see an editor who is passionate about improving, rather than endlessly inserting their POV into articles, so here's a gift! Uness232 (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ankara government said that in 1922-1920 "we are not same with istanbul government". so, they are literally saying "we are not same". i wrote this so people know that. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 09:24, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Anasayfa" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Anasayfa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 23#Anasayfa until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Lithopsian (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOOO!! İT GOT DELETED!! NOO 😭😭😭

anyway.... first job when i access to tr wiki will be nominate main page to deletion. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 13:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking of my account

Hi,

I noticed that my account was blocked after a warning I did not read before (I know, my fault) so I hope we could leave it to a final warning with me refraining from edits that violate copyright.

Countrymaster Countrymaster (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

im not an admin, contact elcobbola on commons

and yet, you have contacted.. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 19:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for one week

I’ve blocked you for a week for disruptive editing as you persist in re-adding a polemic image to your userpage despite at least two users removing it and pointing you to the relevant policy. It states that content attacking or vilifying groups of editors isn’t permitted - an image that effectively says “no Muslims” most definitely qualifies. firefly ( t · c ) 21:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

""""an image that effectively says “no Muslims” most definitely qualifies."""""

SO, THIS image is "that effectively says" no ex-muslims?: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Islam_symbol.svg . because as far as i know, many islamist states are persucated the exmuslims.

also im using this in my commons userpage too! https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Modern_primat

SO, would you block me for putting this image: File:Islam_symbol.svg ??? I GUESS NOT, but why blocked me? i never wrote anything against civilians groups. it is just a commons image and "nice 3x, LOL!!" . OR would you block anyone(for example: users that are muslims(im exmuslim, thats why i wanted to put it here)) with this islamism symbol on their userpage???

so..... you should revert this unfair blocking. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it is NOT anti-muslim, it is anti-islamism. i cant believe this...... ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Star_and_Crescent.svg OR THIS SYMBOL???? how........... ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly hey!!!!!! it never ever says "no muslims"!!! come on!!!! if it is "no muslims" then this image is saying "no exmuslims?": Star_and_Crescent.svg??? which this file is placed in many userpages in english wikipedia?? this is not fair....

it never about civilians groups, it is only about an IDEOLOGY. so, why cant i put the ideologic flag on MY userpage??
i never wrote anything against muslims in the description, i only wrote ""nice 3x, LOL!!"" which is about the previous images: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Modern_primat&oldid=1103178842
you clearly dont count that file as "polemic" file: File:Star_and_Crescent.svg but you count this: File:Anti-Islamism.svg as "polemic"???
you never clearly stated why you reverted my edit, only say ""Nope - none of that here please"" and other revert was 6 months ago(also only put a redirect of a policy really dont count as informative), it is not hard to inform a user before blocking and communicate with.

i saw 2 admins in recent changes, please handle or say "this is unfair" about this unfair action performed by @Firefly . @Liz and @RoySmith(roysmith, your userpage contain a flag, please have a empatyh for me) ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop pinging admins at random. If you wish to appeal the block, see the instructions here. firefly ( t · c ) 21:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how this image is OFFENSİVE OR POLEMİC???? unfair judgment of admin:

ladies and gentlemen, i added this to my user page: File:Anti-Islamism.svg and yet it counted as "polemic". how?? just how?? is it nazi flag? is it attacking civilian groups?

NO!

it is just a symbol of anti-islamism. it is very simple, not attacking civilians, not associated with massacres etc. etc...... im using this in my userpage in commons for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Modern_primat and i didnt get any trouble. AND.... while im writing this i get """Blocked for one week""" topic, im gonna write to him. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

come on!!! why no one is here?????? help me!!!!! ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

appealing block

i literally copypaste this from previous topic. and i added more

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).

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

Request reason:

hey!!!!!! it never ever says "no muslims"!!! come on!!!! if it is "no muslims" then this image is saying "no exmuslims?": Star_and_Crescent.svg??? which this file is placed in many userpages in english wikipedia?? this is not fair.... # it never about civilians groups, it is only about an IDEOLOGY. so, why cant i put the ideologic flag on MY userpage?? # i never wrote anything against muslims in the description, i only wrote ""nice 3x, LOL!!"" which is about the previous images: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Modern_primat&oldid=1103178842 # you clearly dont count that file as "polemic" file: File:Star_and_Crescent.svg but you count this: File:Anti-Islamism.svg as "polemic"??? # you never clearly stated why you reverted my edit, only say ""Nope - none of that here please"" and other revert was 6 months ago(also only put a redirect of a policy really dont count as informative), it is not hard to inform a user and communicate with before blocking. # and lastly, im using this file: File:Anti-Islamism.svg in my userpages across various wikis(example: commons userpage, meta userpage, tr wikiquote userpage) . i NEVER got trouble with this there, and yet you accusing me "you are saying "no to muslims". NO! muslims are my brothers, i only oppose islam and that file represents my idea. users can place their ideologic, religious, political wievs on their userpages(with no WP:FORUM of course). i saw 2 admins in recent changes, please handle or say "this is unfair" about this unfair action performed by (im removing pings)Firefly . Liz and RoySmith(roysmith, your userpage contain a flag, please have a empatyh for me)

Decline reason:

As you have no intention of changing your approach, there are no grounds to consider lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2023 (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.

wow, great! now i have to work more for putting my innocent symbol to my userpage. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 00:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Use Wikipedia's Guide to appealing a block to give you more information on making convincing unblock requests, as your previous request wasn't. -- StarryNightSky11 ☎ 00:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryNightSky11 thank you for this, but i wont use my time for this anymore. i will simply wait over 150 hours and will ask people about this problem in village pump or help desk:

why i cant put "anti-islamism" symbol on my userpage while the "islamism" symbol is already in many userpages in en wiki? ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 00:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly don't understand this after reading what you've been told above, Wikipedia isn't the place for you. --Yamla (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

that block simply killed(or really hurt) my will to contribute en wiki. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 18:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Find out the final decision in Alaa Sarhan's article

Greetings to you and your efforts. I want to know whether the discussion has ended in Alaa Sarhan's article ساندرا بولقاش (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaa Sarhan , here, it is still there. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 17:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gravedancing/Nothere

This edit is WP:GRAVEDANCING. Don't do that. And looking at the rest of your talk page I would say you are WP:NOTHERE. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why i should be WP:NOTHERE because i show my joy to the user who commit personal comments on me and got blocked here? i put images in articles, and even nominate to delete them. but if you really wanna make a complaint for that, go ahead. nothing wont stop you. @DeCausa

and about "rest of my talk page"(about "polemic" image), that is complete unfair decision. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 23:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me jump in on this. People might think that you are WP:NOTHERE for a variety for reasons. Most importantly because you have spent disproportional amounts of time on stuff unrelated to Wikipedia. I can understand that a photo on your user-page (for example) means a lot to you, but not having it on your user-page (in fact even having a blank user page) means nothing for your editing capablities. You also spend a lot of your time on talk pages, and in many cases this is to have arguments on issues that lie outside of academic consensus. I have not seen you constructively edit a page on the contentious topics that you like to talk about. Mercresis, who you gravedanced on, is an editor I've disagreed with on numerous occasions; but they arguably had much more to say that could stay on Wikipedia, even if they were a sock. Uness232 (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

at the end of the day, im the one who not got blocked. and you dont see constructive edits?? ok, well.... then i should add my uploads to en wiki for to see me as "good" user! @Uness232 ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 12:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely consider you WP:HERE if you started making constructive edits on articles about religion, atheism, or whatever else you have talked about. I assume @DeCausa would think the same way.

However, all I've seen you do, here and on trwiki, is to start and participate in contentious arguments; often with no WP:RS to back your position. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I don't know what you mean by "uploads". Uness232 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"trwiki"

wow, you know some turkish, great! but you definetly dont know whats going on in trwiki. because you just check the block log aint you? " WP:RS" xd, i got blocked because WP:NOTSPEECH and WP:FORUM(somehow i cant find exact rules here, but these are similar with "VP:KÜRSÜ" that is on tr wiki)

my uploads, especially for graves, lots of them are not in articles. and i have a question for you @Uness232, i added a photo to article and later some user removed it because "it needs source"? what? how can i find a source that beside the photo itself? i found the exact location in municipality database/website.

also, actually you are just a turkish. i thought you are english and learned turkish, anyway. i actually wrote this in turkish but google translated: What do you mean by "contentious"? I either made a vp:lectern(VP:KÜRSÜ) in the discussions or contributed to the article(talk page) completely. If you look a little further, I also have positive discussions, and most of them are. Anyway... I would be glad if you could answer the above question. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 13:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the revert on the grave photo was about the text you entered. The photo itself would have likely been fine, but you added text to go alongside it, which was not verifiable by looking at the photo. It was a little harsh by the other editor, but you reinstated the edit too, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Uness232 (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

revival of WP Artsakh

hey, based on your activity i thought i'd let you know that WikiProject Artsakh is being revived due to recent events - thank you for your contributions! Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]