User talk:Jsanihsjsn

Hello, Jsanihsjsn, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Rawandiz massacre, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

• Article development
• Standard layout
• Lead section
• The perfect article
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Rawandiz massacre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rawandiz massacre. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Rawandiz massacre while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, no I did not edit while I was logged out, it was one of my friends, I told him previously why he doesn’t want to make an wiki account, he says he doesn’t want to for some reason, I do apologize for such mistake and I will try to put a User access levels onto the page, thank you. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Stickymatch. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Iraq Levies, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Stickymatch 08:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Rawandiz massacre requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Surayeproject3 (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sack of Amadiye is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sack of Amadiye until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Annwfwn (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

HI there, I've been asked about possible sockpuppetry between you and Etcnoel1. A checkuser has already determined that your accounts are unrelated, and since you've said you two are friends () already I don't have any reason to doubt that. Editing with your friends is, obviously, both fine and encouraged. But please be very careful to avoid anything that could give the impression of collusion. You'll want to read WP:MEAT and WP:TAGTEAM for starters. I strongly advise that the two of you do not take part in the same disputes. For example, if one of you is reverted by another editor, the other one of you should not intervene and revert that reversion. Thanks, and happy editing. -- asilvering (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Battle of Aqra Dagh (1920). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and it consists of machine-generated text. 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 the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. asilvering (talk) 04:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Chamba, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Burned. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
• 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.

Jay8g [V•T•E] 02:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Please see WP:GS/AA - topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan are under an extended confirmed restriction. You are not allowed to edit these topics as you're not an extended confirmed user. Another relevant part of WP:GS/AA: “Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below”. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:32, 23 June 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.

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 Kurds and Kurdistan. 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.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. asilvering (talk) 10:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jsanihsjsn, I warned you about this in May already. Etcnoel1 is blocked, you know that, and you've continued to edit alongside their sockpuppet accounts. You're now well past "two friends working on the same articles" and into "off-wiki collusion with a blocked editor". -- asilvering (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

the guy I was editing with was a sock? I didn’t know that since I just wanted to make another page and two people along side me were editing that I did not know, and all of a sudden one of them was a sock to Etcnoel1, apologies for my inconvenience. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 07:32, 25 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I used to work together with Etcnoel1 on making Assyrian Wikipedia pages, and I was recently blocked for apparently working alongside his sockpuppet accounts. However, what does this have to do with me? Why should I take the blame for his actions? I am simply editing my own pages that I CREATED to begin with. It’s out of my control whether he chooses to create a new sockpuppet account or not, and edit with it. I’m gonna say it again; I have no affiliation with his sockpuppet accounts, that is out of my control. This is simple a dumb reason to block me for. We were two online friends working on the same articles, but when he got banned I only continued to work on them. How is it then my fault that he comes in with a sockpuppet account, and starts editing on the same pages I am? Why am I facing consequences for his actions? I shouldn’t have been blocked to begin with. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No convincing reason to unblock at this time Star Mississippi 16:00, 8 August 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.

Please see WP:MEAT. Not to mention that it's hardly out of your control, since you've continued to edit with his socks. Since you are friends with Etcnoel1, perhaps you could convince him to stop creating sockpuppet accounts? -- asilvering (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

You are quite literally wrong. Meatpuppetry is Persuading friends or colleagues to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry), however I have not done this at all. I have not continued to edit with his “socks” as you proclaim I have. I am merely online friends with him, I do not control whatever he does and it shouldn’t affect ME. You guys have no valid reason to hold me back besides silly excuses. Can you elaborate on how I edited his “socks”? All I have done is edit MY drafts. Let’s say for example; If I go on to vandalize a whole page, should that affect my friends who also edit on Wikipedia? No. Why in this case, should HIS stupid actions of creating multiple accounts in order to evade his ban, affect me? I have not encouraged him to do anything, especially not to create accounts in order to support my side or whatever. As a matter of fact, I have not communicated with him in a while now. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

No, that is not the only possible meaning of meatpuppetry. Please see, for example, WP:TAGTEAM, which I know I have pointed out to you before. That said, I would be willing to lift the block if you agree to a WP:TBAN from WP:GS/KURD, since that would take you out of the area of disruption. Just let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

How long will this ban last? Jsanihsjsn (talk) 09:48, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Indefinitely, which is to say, until you convince someone to lift it. The way you do that is by building up a history of making constructive edits on other topics without wildly pissing other people off, filling the encyclopedia with LLM-generated slop, or whatever. You then appeal first to the admin who set the the unblock condition (in this case, me, or whoever else shows up to this unblock request and feels the same way), and failing that, to the community, at WP:AN. In practice, the admin in question usually says no and you end up at WP:AN, but don't skip that first step.

Usually the community doesn't like to hear appeals until six months have passed from the initial ban, or from the last failed appeal. If you're editing particularly actively, I personally wouldn't make you wait that long. Three months would probably be fine. -- asilvering (talk) 10:42, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay I accept this, I’ll not edit any Kurdish dedicated pages, and I will be respectful and not piss other people off. I will come back in 3 months after editing and appeal whether I can start to edit Kurdish pages again. One last question, to what extent does this ban go? Is it only against pages dedicated to Kurds, or any page that simply mentions the word “Kurd”? So if a page mentions the word, I can’t edit it without getting blocked? Jsanihsjsn (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering I am not convinced by their denial of coordination/sockpuppetry, but if you are you are welcome to action this new unblock request. I am leaving it for another admin to review. Thanks @CoffeeCrumbs for the extended explanation on how they'll need to edit if they wish to be a productive editor. Star Mississippi 17:24, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

I fully accepted Asilvering’s deal of WP:TBAN from WP:GS/KURD for 3 months Jsanihsjsn (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Accepting, with conditional WP:TBAN from WP:GS/KURD, appealable at the earliest in three months. (Please ask me before heading to WP:AN; if I think the community is unlikely to accept your unban request, I will tell you.) asilvering (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Jsanihsjsn, just for clarity, you should indicate you're aware that the discussion of six months vs. three months was about the time until you could make an appeal, not a set length of time for the topic ban. You indicate that correctly in the discussion above, but in your unblock request, it appears you're accepting a topic ban for three months, which is a very different thing. Clarity now would help avoid misunderstandings later!

The topic ban is broadly construed, which means all content relating to the Kurds or Kurdistan, anywhere on the site. So editing about Kurdish history or Kurdish individuals or Kurdish culture or any Kurdish topic would fall under this ban, and that includes discussions and talk pages. The lines aren't brightly drawn around the edges, so it's best to be extra-careful, and steer clear of anything related whatsoever that's even tangentially related to these topics. So, for example, I'd urge you to stay away from List of terrorist incidents linked to the Islamic State, even if you're making edits unrelated to Kurds or Kurdistan. It's simply the smart thing to do.

If a topic ban is from, say, sandwiches or clouds or pre-1286 Scotland, there may be more room for "error." But this is a topic under general sanctions, which typically means that the community is absolutely fed up with how people have conducted themselves in that area, and as a result, has far less patience with topic ban violations. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification about both the appeal time and the WP:TBAN, yet from what I can understand from asilvering, if I agree to a WP:TBAN from WP:GS/KURD then the block might be lifted. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'll unblock you now with that condition. @CoffeeCrumbs has explained everything I would have, with just one more thing I think you should be aware of: these "general sanctions"/"contentious topics" are often particularly thorny because they mirror various entrenched off-wiki causes. In this case, obviously, Kurdish nationalism and anti-Kurd sentiment. Admins do their best to keep this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour in check on-wiki, but there's only so much we can do. You list your identity and various positions on your userpage; you will find you have enemies here, simply based on who you are. Those enemies will be absolutely delighted to see you blocked for violating your topic ban or accused of further sockpuppetry. If you slip up, someone who thinks you are their ideological opponent is very likely to ensure that you're sanctioned for it. So don't slip up. Interpret "broadly construed" as broadly as you possibly can. (For reasons I hope are obvious, I would strongly suggest, but not outright require, that you avoid WP:GS/ACAS as well as WP:GS/KURD.) -- asilvering (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Asilvering, Isn't Jsanihsjsn violating his topic ban? they continued to edit an article about something that has been highlighted as a kurdish related topic. although the article is talking about an assyrian commander that goes by the name "Agha Petros", surprisingly there is a CTOP notice regarding Kurds/Kurdistan in the talk page of the article. R3YBOl (🌲) 20:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering No, I’m not violating my topic ban—that page has absolutely NOTHING to do with Kurds. It’s about a National Assyrian hero and reflects the Assyrian struggle in modern times. And I wasn’t even AWARE of anything like that CTOP notice. The subject matter is centered on Assyrian struggles and achievements, it should have absolutely nothing to do with Kurds Jsanihsjsn (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Y'know, I would have been sympathetic to your case if you'd just asserted that the content you edited was unrelated to Kurds, despite other content on the page having relevance to the topic. Literally the second sentence of the article is He is considered a national hero for the Assyrians and other Christian minorities in the Middle East, and became a terror to the Kurds, Turks and other Muslims. Blocking. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As CoffeCrumbs said, I quote: “The topic ban is broadly construed, which means all content relating to the Kurds or Kurdistan, anywhere on the site. So editing about Kurdish history or Kurdish individuals or Kurdish culture or any Kurdish topic would fall under this ban”

They made the Topic ban pretty clear, so I can edit Agha Petros’ page. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Description 114.10.152.95 (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating your topic ban from Kurdish topics, as you did at Agha Petros.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:38, 9 August 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).

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

---

Request reason:

@AsilveringI just got banned by Rosguill after getting unbanned by Asilvering, this Reyboi guy and Rosguill have clearly not read what they told me. “The topic ban is broadly construed, which means all content relating to the Kurds or Kurdistan, anywhere on the site. So editing about Kurdish history or Kurdish individuals or Kurdish culture or any Kurdish topic would fall under this ban” Jsanihsjsn (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Given that it took less than a day for you to breach the conditions of your topicban, I cannot see any way your unblock request will be granted just now, as you evidently are either unwilling or unable to abide by any restrictions given. You are either deliberately breaching your ban, or do not have the required competence to edit Wikipedia. I'm declining this request and I strongly suggest you take the standard offer and wait at least 6 months with no edits to the English Wikipedia and no attempts to circumvent your block before appealing again. CoconutOctopus talk 21:46, 9 August 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.

I don't understand. This is a straightforward violation of the topic ban. -- asilvering (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Hello! It has now been a staggering 6 months since i was last blocked from editing on English Wikipedia due to a topic ban i violated, i have not attempted to evade the block nor create a new account under the blocked IP during this 6 month period. In the meantime, i have edited on Simple English Wikipedia and made 77 contributions on there. Now I'm here to request for my block to finally be lifted so that I can come back to English Wikipedia. Hopefully my past can be forgiven.Jsanihsjsn (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Per below. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Jsanihsjsn, could you explain why your edit to Agha Petros that resulted in a full block was inappropriate? Or perhaps detail some of the articles you've edited on Simple English Wikipedia that you would not be able to here on English Wikipedia? Demonstrating that you understand the bounds your Kurds/Kurdistan topic ban may help in easing some of the concerns of an administrator reviewing your unblock request. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, it was inappropriate because of the CTOP notice on Agha Petros’ talk page that clearly points out the page relates to the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, something that I didn’t pay enough attention to. In short, Agha Petros’ page mentions the Kurds quite significantly, and the topic ban was against me editing anything that relates to Kurds or Kurdistan. As of now, i am fully aware of my mistakes. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you understand that your topic ban will remain in place even if you are unblocked? voorts (talk/contributions) 04:09, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

yes, i do acknowledge that the topic ban will remain in place once my block is removed, for now, i will try my best to edit about other topics and stay away from the kurds. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

@Rosguill: thoughts on unblocking? voorts (talk/contributions) 15:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I would like to see a clearer description by Jsanihsjsn as to what the boundaries of a broadly construed Kurdish topics tban are. For example, are there any portions of the articles Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, History of Lebanon that would/wouldn't be covered by this sanction? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:35, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

well, Recep Tayyip Erdogan's page mentions kurd about 34 times, and he is well known for fighting against the PKK and helping the Syrian transitional government against the SDF, his page should be included in the sanction, history of Lebanon mentions kurds once in the republic of Lebanon section in the Lebanese civil war as a significant minority and not mentioned as a key topic of the page, therefore it shouldn't fall under the sanction, however, i will not be touching the kurdish part of the history of Lebanon's page. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Great, that’s essentially the answer I was looking for. For the record, there are some part of the Erdoğan article that would be ok to edit, such as the Personal life or Early life sections, but most of the content about his political career is indeed at least indirectly connected to Kurdish topics. Courtesy ping to voorts _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

just a question, if the page mentions kurds but not as a main topic of the page (such as the history of Lebanon's page) would it still be okay to edit? (If it also doesn't have a CTOP notice about kurds and kurdistan on the talk page) Jsanihsjsn (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

You can edit it as long as you don't edit any of the content relating to Kurdish topics. Currently, mention of Kurds there seems limited to one paragraph in the section about the Civil War 1975-1990, so as long as you don't change that paragraph you'd be fine. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Last question, do i have to wait 6 months in order to appeal my topic ban? or is it less. Jsanihsjsn (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Not necessarily (although to a point that's up to asilvering who placed that ban), but there is a further consideration, which is that Kurdish topics are by default subject to WP:ECR, which means that no one should be editing Kurdish topics until they hit 500 edits and 1 month of experience (see also WP:ECREXPLAIN). So I would wait until you have considerably more than 500 edits under your belt before appealing the restriction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

i see, am i free on editing Assyrian pages that don't fall under the topic ban? Jsanihsjsn (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not aware of any topic ban for you regarding that topic, and the general WP:GS/ACAS designation just means that all editors are expected to be careful in the topic area, and administrators are given more leeway to impose sanctions in response to disruption; there is no default restriction in place for Assyrian topics. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

about what you said on the kurdish topic ban: could this be said for any page? For example, If a page only mentions Kurds like one or two times, I could still edit the page as long as I don’t edit the Kurdish area? Jsanihsjsn (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, although it would be your responsibility to make sure you're staying clear of the Kurdish components, even if they are not immediately obvious (e.g. Census in Turkey doesn't currently mention Kurds or Kurdish, but it is nevertheless related as the Turkish state's accounting of the Kurdish population is directly relevant to the Kurdish–Turkish conflict; while minor copyediting to that page or obviously uncontroversial details like the year of the first Turkish census would likely still be fine, adding content about the census's methodology or historical validity would likely be fraught, even if you avoid mentioning the words Kurd/Kurdish explicitly) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Description Jsanihsjsn (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Jsanihsjsn. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Battle of Sauj Bulak (1918), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)