User talk:Vofa

January 2024

Hello, I'm Chaotic Enby. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tatars have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 19:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by ,,constructive,,

I took the sources from wiki and tatar community. My edits were constructive. You appear biased. What did I do wrong? Vofa (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Open a dispute and call in someone.

Do it. Vofa (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Libyan Tatars moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Libyan Tatars. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help: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. JTtheOG (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

hello

do not ask other wikipedia users for help in case of dispute it is against wikipedia rules Turkiishh (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Cheers. Vofa (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing the information I add on the nogai page?! Vofa (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You went along,committed sockpuppetry,just 4 hours ago. You reverted my edits on my pages,you are going to be persecuted,and possibly banned. WP:ANI is going to investigate you. If you wish to settlement talk,I have a few proposals: Don’t sockpuppet me,or anyone else on this platform,your name gives off that you’re a pan turkist. I’ve seen your edits. My edits have sources,if you will not make up a relevant reason for reverting and deleting my edits like you wrote ,,Rv,, as explanation for deleting my contributions you’re going to get banned. I did not vandalise Turkic languages page,while you did. I am going to restore all three pages you vandalised : Turkic Languages,Urums and Nogais. Im giving you an hour from now on to respond. Vofa (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

you can add but the source about turkey is broken and nogais are a turkic people and it is already mentioned on the language page that they speak kipchak Turkiishh (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes,language groups differ from ethnic groups. Is this your only excuse? The source isn’t broken,you put them into the bar and press enter. In this case,please revert changes. Vofa (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Your edit gave a source and was constructive, so it shouldn't have been reverted, although you need to include the link inside the ref (and not just in the edit summary) so it shows up. So, something like <ref>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334168544_The_main_phases_of_the_earliest_Nogais'_history_in_Kazakhstan</ref> (and same for the other ones). Good luck!
(On another note, you shouldn't accuse someone of sockpuppetry without evidence, but if you do have evidence, I invite you to present it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations rather than on this talk page) Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Vofa (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, 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.

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. Please also read the talk header section of pages in this topic area for possible additional information and editing restrictions. It does not appear that this notice has been posted to your talk page. If it has already been left already by another editor, please let me know. If you have questions, please request help at the Teahouse.  // Timothy :: talk  21:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ive read your notice,it appears that I’ll be blocked if I edit something again,as it seems. I’m gonna give up,since I don’t see a way I can compromise with the guy,the rules were comprehensive. That said,I’ll edit one page about Nogais with my source which was constructive. Vofa (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the notice. You are not going to be blocked, but if the dispute at Urums had continued much farther, both of you may have been. This is the reason I stepped in to stop the problem - so no one would be blocked. If I thought the best solution was to have you blocked, I would have let it go on past the point of no return. I didn't, but spent the time to post material to help you both understand how Wikipedia works.

Whether you decide to return to the article is up to you. My suggestion to you is to find multiple sources, preferably academic, certainly independent and reliable. This is the key to productively editing Wikipedia, especially in areas designated as contentious, such as eastern Europe and southwest Asia.

This is not a dispute I am going to become involved in, but it may be helpful to consider if both of you are partially correct, and something more nuanced beyond a binary this or that is actually what independent reliable sources supports.

Pinging @Turkiishh: to make you aware of my response above due to your involvement.  // Timothy :: talk  03:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes,I immediately understood what was in store for me,I decided to withdraw and give in, he was in the right anyway. Vofa (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Vofa, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome!  Austronesier (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)