Vnkd

Final warning

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Look, you have been here too long now to be permitted to act contrary to policy, still, or otherwise behave as if the rules do not apply to you. Anybody can make whatever claims they wish about their own authenticity and integrity, but adherence to policy is key for the (Wikipedia) system to progress toward resolution in any given dispute. If you continue with disruptive editing or edit warring, expect imminent sanctions. Please observe WP:ONUS, especially the part which reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Thanks and good luck. El_C 22:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Look there is no value in that table. Who should agree on removing that personal work by that Mr.user2000 guy?? Vnkd (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Block

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for harassment. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 03:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

This is simply unfair. That mr.user2000 user is making two tables by himself which were not discussed with anyone. Even they are different in format between each other with the Yemeni one full of assumptions: it is full of "*" "claim" "+" "-" ... I am asking do, how does that correlate with an encyclopedia?

I did not cancel anything, I just placed the "disputed label" and started the discussion because it is disputed by the parties involved in the war first of all! Read each entry and you will find tons of claims and counterclaims. No way you can make a straightforward table about it. How can he pretend to know facts about two conflicts (the Yemeni even more) with very limited information? I did a lot of those entries, but I really hate to see a person coming in and building up a report based on his POV, drawing conclusions about facts that happened in a far away place, while in most of the entries I tried to keep all the different sides reports together. There is nothing personal, seriously look at the contents!

I ask to have different moderator checking into this point. Vnkd (talk) 06:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This is simply unfair. That mr.user2000 user is making two tables by himself which were not discussed with anyone. Even they are different in format between each other with the Yemeni one full of assumptions: it is full of "*" "claim" "+" "-"  ... I am asking do, how does that correlate with an encyclopedia? 
I did not cancel anything, I just placed the "disputed label" and started the discussion because it is disputed by the parties involved in the war first of all! Read each entry and you will find tons of claims and counterclaims. No way you can make a straightforward table about it.
How can he pretend to know facts about two conflicts (the Yemeni even more) with very limited information?
I did a lot of those entries, but I really hate to see a person coming in and building up a report based on his POV, drawing conclusions about facts that happened in a far away place, while in most of the entries I tried to keep all the different sides reports together.
There is nothing personal, seriously look at the contents! 
I ask to have different moderator checking into this point. [[User:Vnkd|Vnkd]] ([[User talk:Vnkd#top|talk]]) 06:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=This is simply unfair. That mr.user2000 user is making two tables by himself which were not discussed with anyone. Even they are different in format between each other with the Yemeni one full of assumptions: it is full of "*" "claim" "+" "-"  ... I am asking do, how does that correlate with an encyclopedia? 
I did not cancel anything, I just placed the "disputed label" and started the discussion because it is disputed by the parties involved in the war first of all! Read each entry and you will find tons of claims and counterclaims. No way you can make a straightforward table about it.
How can he pretend to know facts about two conflicts (the Yemeni even more) with very limited information?
I did a lot of those entries, but I really hate to see a person coming in and building up a report based on his POV, drawing conclusions about facts that happened in a far away place, while in most of the entries I tried to keep all the different sides reports together.
There is nothing personal, seriously look at the contents! 
I ask to have different moderator checking into this point. [[User:Vnkd|Vnkd]] ([[User talk:Vnkd#top|talk]]) 06:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=This is simply unfair. That mr.user2000 user is making two tables by himself which were not discussed with anyone. Even they are different in format between each other with the Yemeni one full of assumptions: it is full of "*" "claim" "+" "-"  ... I am asking do, how does that correlate with an encyclopedia? 
I did not cancel anything, I just placed the "disputed label" and started the discussion because it is disputed by the parties involved in the war first of all! Read each entry and you will find tons of claims and counterclaims. No way you can make a straightforward table about it.
How can he pretend to know facts about two conflicts (the Yemeni even more) with very limited information?
I did a lot of those entries, but I really hate to see a person coming in and building up a report based on his POV, drawing conclusions about facts that happened in a far away place, while in most of the entries I tried to keep all the different sides reports together.
There is nothing personal, seriously look at the contents! 
I ask to have different moderator checking into this point. [[User:Vnkd|Vnkd]] ([[User talk:Vnkd#top|talk]]) 06:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}