User talk:Devi van velden

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Jacob of Edessa have 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.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Jacob of Edessa was changed by Devi van velden (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.864189 on 2025-09-03T20:49:21+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm R3YBOl. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Abgarid dynasty 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. R3YBOl (🌲) 21:06, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you removed a large amount of well-cited, well-written content from multiple articles, reverting them to older, inferior versions. The reason given was the "removal of Aramean," when in fact the articles still mention this, and moreover your own edits seem to be POV edits themselves. I encourage you to discuss this on the talk page, as it's important to reach a consensus before making substantial changes only because you seemingly disagree with them‌ (I'm still not sure what the issue is). Reverting tens of thousands of bytes without clear justification can be seen as disruptive.

I have thus reverted your edits. It's important to remain neutral and keep the integrity of articles. Cheers, Hogshine (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, conveniently, the two edits you made on Jacob of Edessa and Ephrem the Syrian removed entire sections where Arameans are mentioned, under the label “overhaul.”

Despite that, I don’t see any consensus for these major edits you’re making. The articles had been stable with the given information until you removed tens of thousands of bytes.

Interestingly, I see that you claimed “irrelevant, uncited sources” for this section: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ephrem_the_Syrian&diff=prev&oldid=1290445485

even though it contains many citations and is highly relevant to Ephrem the Syrian.

Not only that, but since you mentioned POV, you labeled this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ephrem_the_Syrian&diff=1290113468&oldid=1289545541

as “rephrasing,” but in fact substituted Syriac with Assyrian, despite the source not mentioning anything about Assyrians (it is behind a paywall, but I can provide screenshots or the text via email).

For such major changes, please discuss them and gain consensus. You do not own the page, and neither do I. Devi van velden (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed you added your own contributions to Mor Gabriel Monastery after consistently undoing every single one of my own edits in favor of an inferior version. Despite objecting to my edits as being "asserting ownership", you have done the exact same thing. Please refrain from pushing your own POV edits while consensus is not reached, as you have already previously violated 3RR on Mor Gabriel, Mor Hananyo, and Ephrem the Syrian - in addition to Ephrem by itself, in addition to approaching violating it on Mor Hananyo. Cheers, Hogshine (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’ve been undoing your edits because you’re labeling your large edits as “overhauls,” but you’re actually adding very sensitive topics that fall under GS:ASAC.

It’s fine that you reverted my one expansive edit on an article, no worries. It’s been contested, and we can work toward consensus on the talk page.

As for the three-revert rule, please refer to its WP page to see what it’s about. Nothing here has violated it, the rule concerns three reverts within a 24-hour period. Devi van velden (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, I've noticed that in many of your edit summaries you say that you'll discuss things on the other editor's talk page. Could you please stick to discussing article content issues on the talk pages of the relevant articles themselves? That makes it easier for other editors to follow along. Thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello there, I am not sure which summaries I've written I will discuss on their user pages, but I will definitely keep in mind not to! Devi van velden (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Here are a couple: , . And thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Assyrian, Chaldean, Aramean, and Syriac identity, culture, and politics. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Leaving you this per reply here . You seem to already know about GS/ACAS, but just a reminder that you're editing within a contentious topic area, and as such, general sanctions enforcement is enacted on articles falling under its scope. Surayeproject3 (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Hogshine (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

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).

Devi van velden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Given reason was the following: "Devi van velden Blocked without tags as WP:MEAT - looks like all their edits on Sept 22 are just to reinstate edits from editors blocked as part of this SPI." So, I was blocked because my edits reverted or reinstated changes that came from the blocked users named in the SPI? Since when does that justify a block? I was updated on the situation and saw that those users had been blocked. Soon after, I noticed two people reverting to the contested versions, so I reverted those edits. Now I am blocked for this? I had already been reviewed in the SPI and was found to be unrelated on any level, yet @Asilvering blocked me without warning. Prior to the puppets being blocked, I was already active on those pages, reverting the contested edits. This is not something that came out of the blue. The edits (which I had already reverted nearly a month ago) were reinstated after two puppets were blocked, and when I reverted them again, I was blocked. The reverts I made are not bound to the blocked editors themselves. I have also expanded some of these articles with additional content, not simply reverting but making constructive edits as well, and adding multiple new references. Is it a crime to be in agreement? I am requesting to be unblocked on the grounds that I do not believe this is block-worthy. I never imagined that reverting contested edits would immediately result in a block. Devi van velden (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This whole request does not actually address whether or not you were violating WP:MEAT. You need to be clear and direct. What exactly is your relationship to all of the other blocked accounts? Yamla (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Reviewing admins may also find helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

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).

Devi van velden (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Given reason was the following: "Devi van velden Blocked without tags as WP:MEAT - looks like all their edits on Sept 22 are just to reinstate edits from editors blocked as part of this SPI."

My plea: I fully deny these allegations. A CU check was performed, which included “off-wiki evidence,” and it still found me to be unrelated in any way to the other accounts listed. I am not in contact with those accounts, nor am I acting as a recruit for them on-wiki.

Details: So, I was blocked because my edits reverted or reinstated changes that came from the blocked users named in the SPI? Since when does that justify a block? I was updated on the situation and saw that those users had been blocked. Soon after, I noticed two people (who participated in the SPI) reverting to the contested versions, so I reverted those edits. Now I am blocked for this?

I had already been reviewed in the SPI and was found to be unrelated on any level, yet @Asilvering blocked me without warning. Prior to the puppets being blocked, I was already active on those pages, reverting the contested edits. This is not something that came out of the blue. The edits (which I had already reverted nearly a month ago) were reinstated after two puppets were blocked, and when I reverted them again, I was blocked.

The reverts I made are not bound to the blocked editors themselves. I have also expanded some of these articles with additional content, not simply reverting but making constructive edits as well, and adding multiple new references. Is it a crime to be in agreement?

I am requesting to be unblocked on the grounds that I do not believe this is block-worthy. I never imagined that reverting contested edits would immediately result in a block. Devi van velden (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Regardless of the lack of CU evidence (which can never clear a user of sockpuppetry, only help confirm it), the discussion here was short-circuited by the SPI-based block, but in itself would warrant blocking. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:40, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

---

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.

Devi van velden (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I was gonna create a new article but saw that there was already a draft on it, and you were the one that built it. So I have improven it and finish it but now while sending this message I see you are blocked maybe why you did not finish. I hope it is fine if I edit 777network (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)