User talk:Souren8

Hi Souren8! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Souren8, Wikipedia is not required to comply with official versions. We have a policy about article titles (WP:NC). The titles you are changing are already concise and specific enough, and thus your changes are unnecessary. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi @StephenMacky1, thank you very much for the observation. The revision has been about the full country name. If you can show any policy that in the article title the names of countries can be presented partially or in any other way, it would be good to know. Thank you again. Souren8 (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I already linked you the policy. It is not necessary to use the country's full official name unless disambiguation is necessary. Apart from being concise and precise, the titles of the articles are also consistent with the articles about other countries. For many articles about countries, we use their common names (ex. Police of Poland and not Police of Republic of Poland). Armenia is the common name of the country and thus that is the name we use for articles about the country. StephenMacky1 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, well received. Then why this page, "Ministry of Internal Affairs (Armenia)" is not in this way Ministry of Internal Affairs of Armenia? Could it be revised, otherwise I am not sure the approach is well understood. Souren8 (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know, but there are many other articles that also use this formulation (ex. Ministry of Internal Affairs (Uganda)). I guess what matters is that they use the common name. StephenMacky1 (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I checked for instance this Wikipedia page, Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia. I kindly ask you to revise the page title as it is for our neighboring country. Thank you. Souren8 (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, but the other neighboring countries also use the formulation I mentioned. I will not mess with it though, as it is better to gain consensus for such changes. You can request WP:RM if you think the title should be changed. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Just be informed that Azerbaijan will NOT send any representative to the summit, their Foreign minister confirmed it. Thanks. ~2026-26398-38 (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, many thanks for the update. Souren8 (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 8th European Political Community Summit, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pan-European was added. 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) 18:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Yerevan Dialogue. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources and it has too many problems of language or grammar. I have converted it 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. • Quinn (talk • it/its) 01:56, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Deleted as copyvio. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 07:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather Please unblock the account. Souren8 (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Souren8! Your additions to 2026 EU-Armenia Summit have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 07:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather Copyright policy has not been violated and you have not provided adequate and sufficient guidance. I request immediately unblock my account and provide detailed guidance. Souren8 (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather I request from editorial team to check the adequacy of teh action done by @CambridgeBayWeather Souren8 (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You blocked the page fine, but I am working on another top priority page, and you blocked me editing. Are you ok? @CambridgeBayWeather Souren8 (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I hope @CambridgeBayWeather you as editor will be blocked given that it is indicated "This block will not expire". My appeals on you also will not expire. Souren8 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Persistent failure to comply. I am reading and thinking what persistent means in this context to block the account. I disagree with the severity of the measure. This should not have occurred. Souren8 (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Your edit to 2026 EU-Armenia Summit has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. MCE89 (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Copyright policy has not been violated and you have not provided adequate and sufficient guidance. I request immediately unblock my account and provide detailed guidance. Souren8 (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

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 ~~~~}} or use the unblock wizard.  CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 12:58, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Copyright policy has not been violated and you have not provided adequate and sufficient guidance. I request immediately unblock my account and provide detailed guidance. Souren8 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The text of the article you created at 2026 EU-Armenia Summit was almost entirely the same as this press release, which is not allowed under Wikipedia's copyright policies. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously, so to convince an administrator to unblock your account you'll want to show that you understand copyright policy and that you know how to follow it in future. There are some useful links about copyright on Wikipedia in the warnings that you were given just up this page. I'd recommend starting by having a read of WP:COPYPASTE — please feel free to ask me here if anything on that page is unclear to you. Once you feel that you understand how to follow copyright policy in future, you can request an unblock using the unblock wizard. The guide to appealing blocks also has some useful general advice about appealing a block. MCE89 (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the first version was entirely the same page as the press release. However, it has been processed to avoid any copyright issue. I just did not have time to finalize it as I have worked on top priority editing. I understand your point and it would not be repeated. I have just joined and need to learn more details. But I kindly ask you to unblock now my account to continue important work. Souren8 (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

For now, there will be no any editing related the page you mentioned 2026 EU-Armenia Summit Souren8 (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not an administrator, so I can't unblock your account myself. If you'd like to request that an administrator consider unblocking your account, you can use the unblock wizard or you can paste {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page. It's important to bear in mind that Wikipedia can't host copyrighted material for any length of time, even if you're planning to rewrite it or paraphrase it later. You need to make sure that any content you're adding to Wikipedia (including in drafts and sandboxes) is written in your own words. MCE89 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I appealed, and it is so sad to experience such approach from the editor@CambridgeBayWeather within days of using Wikipedia. It seems he does not see other good work that is being done on another page. And he can see the quality of the work and the approach. Instead he preferred to block my account to stop from creating good content, of course temporarily. I am writing again and again about the urgency to unblock the account so I continue the work being done. I believe from my side I have assured the point the editor made. Souren8 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I am looking at @CambridgeBayWeather profile, it shows 2733 Users blocked and 39 Users unblocked. So he block and there is no another one to check his decision. And he is the one reviewing the case. What a strange approach. It seems @CambridgeBayWeather he is so quick in blocking and so slow at unblocking. Souren8 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I understand that it's frustrating to be blocked from editing. Blocks aren't intended as a punishment or as a criticism of your work — the reason you were blocked is to prevent further copyright violations. If you can convince an administrator that you now understand the reason you were blocked and that you won't violate copyright policy again if unblocked, they're likely to lift the block. To appeal your block you'll need to submit an unblock request using the unblock wizard or by pasting {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of the page, which will put it in a queue for a different administrator to review. There are lots of users waiting for their unblock requests to be reviewed and only a limited number of administrators reviewing these appeals, so you'll likely need to be patient until someone gets to yours. There's also no need for you to keep pinging CambridgeBayWeather, and please read WP:NOTTHEM. MCE89 (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Souren8, please stop pinging CambridgeBayWeather. You've pinged them eight times now, and complaining about the administrator who blocked you is not going to help you to get unblocked. It looks like you selected "I would like to know why I was blocked" on the unblock wizard, so you haven't yet actually submitted a block appeal. If you want to appeal your block, you need to instead pick "I was blocked for something else" and follow the steps in the unblock wizard. Again, please have a read of the guide to appealing blocks, particularly the section WP:NOTTHEM, first. If you have any questions about copyright policy that you'd like to clarify before you submit your block appeal, I'm also happy to help answer those. MCE89 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Do not I have a right to complain about the decision of the editor @CambridgeBayWeather ? It should not have been the status "This block will not expire". I really ask Wikipedia management, does not this decision itself a violation of Wikipedia policies. I feel so unfairly treated.

I submitted both the case and unblock wizard case, and I have no good expectations specifically from this editor @CambridgeBayWeather I several times asked for the urgency to unblock the account. But anyway, I am fine.

I had been editing the page 8th European Political Community Summit and you can see the quality of the work. As the event is ongoing, it is the reason I raise the urgency. Editor @CambridgeBayWeather does not allow proceeding the work because I did not have time to process the content in another two pages as 2 to 3 day user of this platform. As you can see the page could not be completed, By the way, no any comment about that page on which I have been working. Souren8 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, but blocking the account with indication "This block will not expire" speaks volumes about the unprofessional approach @CambridgeBayWeather . I am not sure he is objective and impartial editor and I ask Wikipedia management to check the adequacy of this measure. Only one part of the work was seen, i mean the page that was references and not the another page. So the was assigned to the same editor who blocked the account. I am here to contribute and if this is the way their treat contributors with good faith, then the pathway forward will show. Why I should not pinging @CambridgeBayWeather ? I insist too strict and inappropriate measure has been taken by this editor @CambridgeBayWeather for the outcome "This block will not expire". Such contribution from editor @CambridgeBayWeather should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. Souren8 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Wikipedia doesn't exactly have "management" — administrators are volunteers, and they make blocks based on the blocking policy to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Your block is indefinite (meaning that it will not automatically expire), which is very typical for copyright blocks. This doesn't mean that the block will necessarily last forever, it just means that you'll need to convince an administrator that you understand copyright policy and won't violate it in future before they will lift your block. The reason you were blocked is that you added copyrighted material to Wikipedia after being warned for a previous copyright violation, so an administrator blocked you to prevent this from continuing. I understand that it's frustrating to be blocked, but if you'd like to continue editing here, I strongly suggest that you focus on explaining how you will avoid copyright issues in future rather than focusing on the administrator who blocked you. MCE89 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I did not have any intention for violating copyright policy. I know what it is and follow it in my everyday work. My mistake was doing too much work at the same time and publishing the page instead of reviewing it. But it was a technical mistake, again I am just 2-3 day user.

Of course, I can convince the administrator, but will the administrator convince me about being objective and impartial about the decision "This block will not expire. "? Is this done for making contributors more enthusiastic? Souren8 (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Please kindly advice how I can report on the administrator who blocked my account. I feel the administrator abused the power of authority. Souren8 (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Blaming the admin who blocked you is a quick way to have your unblock request rejected. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

It is not about blaming, please do not darken the colors of the context. It is about feeling unfairly treated, especially as a new comer. Seemingly, there was even no warning about blocking, it was very abrupt. But the unblock request has been submitted and I will follow procedure. Souren8 (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

@CambridgeBayWeather blocked my profile and does not unblock. I already submitted the case indicating that copyright policy will be strictly followed. I am not sure about the approach used to block the account. I believe the editor overused the authority of the power. Souren8 (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I was at work and coming home making it impossible to respond and multiple pings are not going to make me turn up any quicker (four times in one paragraph). You copied from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/03/26/first-ever-eu-armenia-summit-to-take-place-on-4-and-5-may-2026/ at least twice in 2026 EU-Armenia Summit and also from https://yerevandialogue.com/overview/ in Draft:Yerevan Dialogue. So contrary to your claim copyright had been violated. If you read Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others there is a sentence that reads, "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." If you had followed the instructions in the blocked message and also pointed out, twice, by MCE89 another administrator might have noticed and made a decision. Although there is no "Wikipedia management" that will make a decision I will make a post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User talk:Souren8 so others can look. However, it's usless to ping me again as I need to get ready to fly south and will not be able to respond until this evening. CambridgeBayWeather (#1 deranged), Uqaqatigijaa (talk), Huliva 15:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, what you are saying, refers to the first version of those two pages that you removed. I disagree that the same refers to the second version of those pages, I revised them. I agree that they should have been more processed and reviewed but i saw only the publication button. And there was nothing intentional about any copyright material.

What I am asking is to unblock me now to work only on this page 8th European Political Community Summit given the urgency of ongoing work. Later I would be happy to detail the approach and discuss copyright related matters. Is that possible given no issue related to working on that page? @CambridgeBayWeather Souren8 (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Just thinking about the decision "This block will not expire" for a 2-3 day contributor after accidentally reading this. You demand complying with copyright policy of Wikipedia, while violating the policies on assuming good faith and not biting the newcomers.

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Main page: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules, but may nonetheless turn out to be valuable contributors.

A newcomer's behavior probably seems appropriate to them, and a problem in that regard usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their notion of how things should function, especially if they notice that there is already some level of disagreement over the policy in question. Similarly, many newcomers want to have their contributions to articles accepted without question, especially those which pertain to subjects on which they have extensive knowledge. Behaviors arising from these perspectives, while possibly misguided, are usually not malicious and should not be treated as such. Many new users who lack an intuitive grasp of Wikipedia customs are gradually brought around, once the logic behind these customs becomes clearer to them. Souren8 (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Souren8, please follow the instructions in the block notice above and make an unblock request after reading the guide to appealing blocks. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you @Voorts . I already appealed the case for unblocking. I have been given a case number. It shows @CambridgeBayWeather should review the case. I hope this is the same you referred to. Souren8 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The appeal you made by UTRS was declined because you have access to your talk page (UTRS appeal #112673). Please follow the instructions that have been provided to you above and make a proper unblock request on your talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Done , thank you @Voorts Souren8 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

Dear Editors,

I would like to clarify that the issues identified in my recent edits were not intentional. The combination of the ongoing event and my status as a new user contributed to some gaps in my contribution. In my professional work I regularly handle similar tasks, so I fully understand the importance of respecting copyright policy and editorial standards.

My main focus has been contributing to the development of the ongoing 8th European Political Community Summit, and as you can see, no issues were identified with my contributions to that page. I would like to continue contributing constructively, but I now need your assistance to have my account unblocked. If anything is noticed that should be addressed, please do not block me, I will address the noticed gaps in compliance with the polices.

I will carefully follow all copyright requirements and will pay close attention to any suggestions or comments you may provide, even when working under time pressure. Regarding the two pages where copyright concerns were raised, I will not work on them for now. I will instead focus on one page related to the ongoing event and ensure full compliance with all policies.

I kindly ask for your assistance in unblocking my account so that I may continue contributing responsibly.

Thank you for your consideration. Souren8 (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You still have not followed the instructions:

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 ~~~~}} or use the unblock wizard. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:19, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts Thank you so much and sorry any inconvenience. Could you please check?

{{unblock|reason=

Dear Editors,

I would like to clarify that the issues identified in my recent edits were not intentional. The combination of the ongoing event and my status as a new user contributed to some gaps in my contribution. In my professional work I regularly handle similar tasks, so I fully understand the importance of respecting copyright policy and editorial standards.

My main focus has been contributing to the development of the ongoing 8th European Political Community Summit, and as you can see, no issues were identified with my contributions to that page. I would like to continue contributing constructively, but I now need your assistance to have my account unblocked. If anything is noticed that should be addressed, please do not block me, I will address the noticed gaps in compliance with the polices.

I will carefully follow all copyright requirements and will pay close attention to any suggestions or comments you may provide, even when working under time pressure. Regarding the two pages where copyright concerns were raised, I will not work on them for now. I will instead focus on one page related to the ongoing event and ensure full compliance with all policies.

I kindly ask for your assistance in unblocking my account so that I may continue contributing responsibly.

Thank you for your consideration.}}

Souren8 (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

If you are having this much difficulty following simple instructions, I have my doubts that you will carefully follow all copyright requirements and will pay close attention to any suggestions or comments you may provide, even when working under time pressure. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:31, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers Souren8 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts thank you very much. It seems done! Souren8 (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts Why is the account not unblocked? What else is required? Why are my multiple requests for urgent unblocking being ignored? Souren8 (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Because your request is not urgent. There is a large queue of editors waiting to have their unblock requests reviewed. Yours will be reviewed in due course. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@Voorts I want to become aware of what means "due course". Please kindly provide the relevant Wikipedia policies. Souren8 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Stop wikilawyering. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:55, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Nobody wikilawyering but thank you for another useful guidance to know. Souren8 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

and sorry if such impression has been created. Souren8 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

If your immediate response to me telling you to be patient is "where does it say I have to be patient in the policies and guidelines?" then you are most definitely wikilawyering. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

From the source you provided Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, I am reading the following "All editors are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (P&G). Civil, succinct, and relevant analysis of P&G is not wikilawyering, but is the best way to mutually resolve disputes."

You wrote "Yours will be reviewed in due course." and asked "I want to become aware of what means "due course". Please kindly provide the relevant Wikipedia policies."

Why you are blaming me in Wikilawyering, when it is not, especially that I wrote sorry if such impression has been created? Souren8 (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

In addition, I have not said such phrase "where does it say I have to be patient in the policies and guidelines?" Souren8 (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't literally quoting you. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Just for a little context, since I don't think it's been mentioned yet - the moment any copyrighted text is saved in Wikipedia's history (the moment you click "publish"), it's on the website and Wikipedia has violated copyright law. It doesn't matter whether you are intending to change it later, it's on the servers and visible in the edit history to anyone to see. Wikipedia just cannot take any chances - it's headquartered in California, where copyright is taken very, very seriously.

If you're working from copyrighted text, it may be best to do that in a word processor or notepad outside Wikipedia.

I've heard of a very useful technique some editors use to make sure they aren't committing copyright violation by accident. They read through a couple of paragraphs to make sure they understand them, then they minimise the tab/close the book. After a minute or so, they'll them write down their understanding of the paragraph in their own words. You can always go back to the tab/page to make sure it's legitimately different enough to not count as copyright infringement, if you want to be absolutely certain. Blue-Sonnet 03:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation, it is well received and will be followed. I have relevant solid education, I learned it, I am using it on my everyday practice. The reasons I mentioned were just technical ones. I fully agree what you mentioned. What I am also saying is that if such guidance was provided throughout the process of editing, I would find it more constructive and there would not be a need to block a 2 day user. I explained many times that I am working on the page that is very important to continue building. And no practical steps to unblock the account. Souren8 (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Souren8, I will try to explain some of the things that have concerned or confused you.

• 'In due course' means basically 'when possible'; in this case your appeal will be considered when possible, when an administrator is available. Keep in mind all administrators are volunteers (most editors are) and they have lots of other duties, so sometimes you have to wait for someone to become available. I can promise you that they will show up; block appeals go into a special category that administrators frequently patrol. There's about 80 people waiting at the moment so you do have to be patient.
• An indefinite block is actually a good thing for you (and other newbies) because it doesn't mean infinite: as soon as you write a convincing appeal, you can be blocked. You don't have to wait for two weeks or a month or six months; you can read the policies and prove that you intend to abide by them much faster than that.
• CambridgeBayWeather is probably not going to be the administrator who deals with your appeal, which is also a good thing because you don't have to wait for them to have free time. We have many administrators who can help, and one will when they are available to do so.
• You were given guidance with a warning about copyright. The warning includes information specifically about copyright on Wikipedia. You insisted that you weren't breaching copyright, but you were. Then you continued, and were blocked to stop more copyrighted material being added to Wikipedia. If you're confused about a warning you get, or you don't know a policy, you can ask the editor who warned you or go to the Teahouse to ask for advice. Understand that while you are new, other editors probably know better than you whether you're editing appropriately or not. If someone tells you that you should stop doing something, it's a good idea to stop until you've talked to experienced editors about it.

Best wishes, Meadowlark (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you very much for respectful explanation, otherwise from yesterday's conversations I got impression such hostile communication approach is accepted in Wikipedia. Now, I am experiencing really respectful and supportive guidance, which is much appreciated. The administrator who blocked me, CambridgeBayWeather, I still find that his approach should be examined by the team members. In the long queue list of blocked accounts, only mine is related to copyright. I was contributing to one page with no any issues and that administrator blocked my contribution. Several times I explained the urgency of continuing the work. I find that solution as a very severe measure for a 2 day user. Again, if possible, I suggest examining the adequacy of the approach carried out by that administrator. As indicated above while protecting copyright policy, I feel the administrator allegedly violated other Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to

Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Main page: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

I already indicated that it was a technical issue of publishing, I saw only that button of publication. Copyright issue would definitely arise for the first version, but not for the second version as the material was revised and more processed though not reviewed before publication. I fully agree that it should have been reviewed before publication. But it was just first experience and communicating with me the procedure respectfully and adequately would prevent from having such situation. That administrator made my first experience unpleasant and I do not think it is in line with Wikipedia policies. The second administrator voorst, also contributed to that unpleasant experience trying to present my argument from the point of blaming. I find the second administrator also violated aforementioned policies at least. Those policies indicate Treat newcomers with kindness and patience—nothing scares valuable contributors away faster than hostility. On a positive note, I learned a lot from this experience.

Souren8 (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Could you explain what was urgent about you continuing to edit? I'm also curious about where you first learned about 'do not bite the newcomers', since for obvious reasons it's not something newbies are normally told to remember. Our navigation systems might not be working so well if you could find those guidelines but not really important policies about things like copyright.

You can request review of CambridgeBayWeather's (I'll call them CBW for short) actions, but I'm not sure that's the best idea. I suspect many administrators would have done the same under the circumstances. It is however totally up to you. Maybe have a think about it first, take some time to cool down. Blocks can be very stressful and upsetting, and I'm sure it wasn't the most fun experience.

The thing is, copyright violations mean Wikipedia could be sued into oblivion and forced to shut down. You received a standard copyright warning, which is generally agreed to be respectful and informative. When you kept editing without responding, it's probable that CBW was concerned that you would keep adding copyright violations and so they felt they needed to block you. Blocks are preventative, not punitive; you were blocked to make sure you couldn't breach copyright again. I think it's very likely that when you said that you hadn't breached copyright, that was even more concerning as it suggested you didn't know the copyright policy and hadn't read the information CBW left for you. Can you see how that might have come across as a really big problem for Wikipedia? We know now that you didn't intend to breach copyright, but CBW didn't know that when they took action. Meadowlark (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thank you. Regarding the question “Could you explain what was urgent about you continuing to edit?”, I have explained the reason for the urgency multiple times. Once again, the 8th EPC Summit is ongoing, and I repeatedly asked to be allowed to continue contributing to that page, where no issues had been identified. I also stated clearly that I would work only on that page until all concerns are clarified. One of the contributors, probably administrator, responded saying that “your request is not urgent. There is a large queue of editors waiting to have their unblock requests reviewed. Yours will be reviewed in due course.” I took into consideration it and I am waiting for the review. I hope this clarifies this part. Souren8 (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Unfortunately, this would not be considered urgent for Wikipedia - we're not a newspaper, we have no deadlines and no rush to update things - so waiting is your best course of action now. I hope an administrator will be able to assist you soon :) Meadowlark (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I am doing exactly that. The article would have been more complete and developed if done throughout the event. Thank you for the source as well. Souren8 (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, you could always draft the things you want to add in Word or Google Docs or another similar word processor as the event continues. While you're waiting for your appeal to be answered, I'll point you towards some useful pages in terms of editing. My favourite is WP:42, which sets out the triple criteria required for a good source. It's preferable to use sources meeting all three criteria if they're available. Be extremely cautious of WP:CLOP, or close paraphrasing; we must be careful to digest and summarise the information from other sources, and never to use close paraphrasing. And in general, here's the Manual of Style, which is always handy for making sure your edits fit into the overall look and feel. That last one isn't anywhere near as important as the others, but if you have time it's nice to tidy things up while you're editing. Meadowlark (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, much appreciated. Souren8 (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding this part, "I'm also curious about where you first learned about 'do not bite the newcomers', since for obvious reasons it's not something newbies are normally told to remember."

A agree that 'do not bite the newcomers' is not the first thing newbies should normally be told to remember, but the blocking of a 2 day-user and further communication led to exploring and I do not specifically remember how I encountered them. As such situations occur and you block a 2-day user, making first experience unpleasant one, I suggest including those polices as part of the usual introductory package for newcomers so both sides can be well aware of them. Souren8 (talk) 17:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

For this part "Our navigation systems might not be working so well if you could find those guidelines but not really important policies about things like copyright."

I could not say anything about navigation. As for the policies, let me disagree with the formulation. I believe there are no more important and less important polices, they are all for specific purposes. I agree that there are so called prioritized policies and copyright definitely belongs to them. Those polices based on my experience I found very important. Souren8 (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Related to this part "You can request review of CambridgeBayWeather's (I'll call them CBW for short) actions, but I'm not sure that's the best idea. I suspect many administrators would have done the same under the circumstances. It is however totally up to you. Maybe have a think about it first, take some time to cool down. Blocks can be very stressful and upsetting, and I'm sure it wasn't the most fun experience."

I am taking your advice and confirm that there is no need for conducting any review. I really would not like to have such requests from my side. Let me explain what I did not like about this and what led to me to request such review. The communication was not done in a way that could have prevented this. Moreover, I got impression from another administrator that if I requested such review, then the account can be blocked. I did not feel this was the way the communication should have been done. Anyway, again I am taking your advice and confirm that there is no need for any review for any administrator. I am sure you know better other administrators and I value your advice. Souren8 (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Finally, regarding the last part "The thing is, copyright violations mean Wikipedia could be sued into oblivion and forced to shut down. You received a standard copyright warning, which is generally agreed to be respectful and informative. When you kept editing without responding, it's probable that CBW was concerned that you would keep adding copyright violations and so they felt they needed to block you. Blocks are preventative, not punitive; you were blocked to make sure you couldn't breach copyright again. I think it's very likely that when you said that you hadn't breached copyright, that was even more concerning as it suggested you didn't know the copyright policy and hadn't read the information CBW left for you. Can you see how that might have come across as a really big problem for Wikipedia? We know now that you didn't intend to breach copyright, but CBW didn't know that when they took action."

In my previous communication I already indicated that two versions were published. Before publishing the second version, it was revised and processed but not reviewed. Again, I explained that I saw only publication button and it was a technical issue, it should have been reviewed before publication. It was viewed as copyright related issue, but my point is that it was a technical mistake, definitely not intentional. Again, it was related to ongoing event and there was time pressure to handle all. The only thing is the article just should have been reviewed before publication. Souren8 (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Yerevan Dialogue. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted it 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. JTtheOG (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, this is well received. Souren8 (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Souren8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Dear Editors,

I would like to clarify that the issues identified in my recent edits were not intentional. The combination of the ongoing event and my status as a new user contributed to some gaps in my contribution. In my professional work I regularly handle similar tasks, so I fully understand the importance of respecting copyright policy and editorial standards. My main focus has been contributing to the development of the ongoing 8th European Political Community Summit, and as you can see, no issues were identified with my contributions to that page. I would like to continue contributing constructively, but I now need your assistance to have my account unblocked. If anything is noticed that should be addressed, please do not block me; I will address the noticed gaps in compliance with the policies. I will carefully follow all copyright requirements and will pay close attention to any suggestions or comments you may provide, even when working under time pressure. Regarding the two pages where copyright concerns were raised, I will not work on them for now. I will instead focus on one page related to the ongoing event and ensure full compliance with all policies. I kindly ask for your assistance in unblocking my account so that I may continue contributing responsibly.

Thank you for your consideration. Souren8 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

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=Dear Editors, I would like to clarify that the issues identified in my recent edits were not intentional. The combination of the ongoing event and my status as a new user contributed to some gaps in my contribution. In my professional work I regularly handle similar tasks, so I fully understand the importance of respecting copyright policy and editorial standards. My main focus has been contributing to the development of the ongoing 8th European Political Community Summit, and as you can see, no issues were identified with my contributions to that page. I would like to continue contributing constructively, but I now need your assistance to have my account unblocked. If anything is noticed that should be addressed, please do not block me; I will address the noticed gaps in compliance with the policies. I will carefully follow all copyright requirements and will pay close attention to any suggestions or comments you may provide, even when working under time pressure. Regarding the two pages where copyright concerns were raised, I will not work on them for now. I will instead focus on one page related to the ongoing event and ensure full compliance with all policies. I kindly ask for your assistance in unblocking my account so that I may continue contributing responsibly. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Souren8|Souren8]] ([[User talk:Souren8#top|talk]]) 16:51, 3 May 2026 (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=Dear Editors, I would like to clarify that the issues identified in my recent edits were not intentional. The combination of the ongoing event and my status as a new user contributed to some gaps in my contribution. In my professional work I regularly handle similar tasks, so I fully understand the importance of respecting copyright policy and editorial standards. My main focus has been contributing to the development of the ongoing 8th European Political Community Summit, and as you can see, no issues were identified with my contributions to that page. I would like to continue contributing constructively, but I now need your assistance to have my account unblocked. If anything is noticed that should be addressed, please do not block me; I will address the noticed gaps in compliance with the policies. I will carefully follow all copyright requirements and will pay close attention to any suggestions or comments you may provide, even when working under time pressure. Regarding the two pages where copyright concerns were raised, I will not work on them for now. I will instead focus on one page related to the ongoing event and ensure full compliance with all policies. I kindly ask for your assistance in unblocking my account so that I may continue contributing responsibly. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Souren8|Souren8]] ([[User talk:Souren8#top|talk]]) 16:51, 3 May 2026 (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=Dear Editors, I would like to clarify that the issues identified in my recent edits were not intentional. The combination of the ongoing event and my status as a new user contributed to some gaps in my contribution. In my professional work I regularly handle similar tasks, so I fully understand the importance of respecting copyright policy and editorial standards. My main focus has been contributing to the development of the ongoing 8th European Political Community Summit, and as you can see, no issues were identified with my contributions to that page. I would like to continue contributing constructively, but I now need your assistance to have my account unblocked. If anything is noticed that should be addressed, please do not block me; I will address the noticed gaps in compliance with the policies. I will carefully follow all copyright requirements and will pay close attention to any suggestions or comments you may provide, even when working under time pressure. Regarding the two pages where copyright concerns were raised, I will not work on them for now. I will instead focus on one page related to the ongoing event and ensure full compliance with all policies. I kindly ask for your assistance in unblocking my account so that I may continue contributing responsibly. Thank you for your consideration. [[User:Souren8|Souren8]] ([[User talk:Souren8#top|talk]]) 16:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

(Non-administrator comment) I've moved this to it's own section so it's easier to find - if you don't like this please feel free to undo this edit or let me know and I'll undo it for you. I was having trouble finding your appeal template earlier & thought this would be helpful. Blue-Sonnet 03:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The 8th European Political Community Summit article that is currently about 70% by this user and is referred to as the main goal in editing if unblocked, "I will instead focus on one page related to the ongoing event", is currently in need of a major copyright violation cleanup (seems to be small bits and pieces all over the place rather than huge copy/pastes). I don't understand this user's promise to follow policy given that the user appears to be unaware that 8th European Political Community Summit is full of copyvios. The first task would be to remove all the copyright violations in preparation for WP:REVDELs (I'm not volunteering). Boud (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The longer the discussion goes on, the more AI signs I've been seeing throughout this Talk page - this would explain the intermittent copyvio, since AI is notorious for doing that.

I also suspect the appeal may involve some AI/LLM generation, since it follows a very familiar linguistic pattern that I see frequently in AI-generated appeals. Blue-Sonnet 15:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I do think that there is a human behind the account, with some comments written naturally, and others LLM-generated.

Souren8: See WP:LLMTALK for the reasons for not accepting LLM-generated talk page text in Wikipedia. You could use {{s}} to strikeout your current appeal, re-read the guidelines for appealing, and then write a new appeal in your own words, presenting evidence that you understand copyright policy (including WP:PARAPHRASE) by showing the main examples of copyright violations in the current version of 8th European Political Community Summit and where they are copy/pasted from. Using {{tq}} or "quotes" for this purpose of analysis is not itself a copyright violation, because quoting on a talk page shows that the intention is about copyright violation (as long as the quotes are reasonably brief, or use "..." in the middle if needed). There's no need for the analysis to be in perfect English; imperfect natural English in your own words would be fine.

Just to be clear: it's not me or Blue Sonnet who you need to convince; you need to convince an admin. Boud (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I confirm that the appeal and all other communication have been written by me. If necessary, I am willing to meet in person and answer all your questions both verbally and in written. As for the request to rewrite the appeal, I am not going to do that because it has been absolutely written by me. I am surprised to read this statement " I do think that there is a human behind the account", really? With the same approach, how can I be sure that I am talking with real people, real editors and whether their statements are all written naturally, and not as LLM-generated? What will be the next suspicions, I am curious to learn. Souren8 (talk) 19:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

We get AI-generated appeals frequently, so this is determined by past knowledge and experience - there are parts of your appeal that exhibited classic signs but other posts don't have those.

In AI-generated appeals, we see a lot of "I would like to clarify", "this wasn't intentional/my intent was", "I will not X, instead I will Y". They always, always end with "Thank you for your time/consideration/time and consideration".

Then, when I look at your other posts I see incomplete sentences and grammatical errors - these are consistent in your general posts yet that's no sign of them whatsoever in your appeal.

Overall, the writing style of your general posts vs. the appeal is very different and that made me concerned.

Did you use any form of AI, LLM, chatbot, grammar checker or machine translator when writing your appeal - anything that might explain what we're seeing here? Blue-Sonnet 11:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Dear @Blue-Sonnet thank you for the clarification. Some paragraphs were long and it was not convenient to work on them in this field. Instead, I worked on the word document template and just copied the finalized text here. The word document grammar checker is what I have used. No I am not using machine translator ։)), my last education was in English at the US affiliated university. Besides that I have IELTS exam test with C1 score, if necessary I can provide. Now when you ask, I am thinking why you may notice such difference. I suppose it is because on the appeal I read it several times, restructured to make my argument as specific and clear as possible. My point is the extent of the review is different, I mean for appeal I read several times, but there are paragraphs, I did not review in detail. I am not sure whether the approach should be consistent, I mean for each talk I provide here, but it is how I responded so far. Of course, I want to add that wile working on the article(s), I have been careful as for the appeal and revised throughout the article development process to make the formulation as clear and understandable as possible. For instance, I am sending this paragraph without reading it for the second time. Souren8 (talk) 14:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it I think - Microsoft Copilot is an AI program! Blue-Sonnet 14:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Did I mention about the copilot for such conclusion? If used, I am not hesitant to indicate about it, but I turned the copilot off from word document for a year ago because it appeared annoying for me. What I have used and I am using is the usual grammar checker in the word document what is also applied here. I mean when you write any word incorrectly it highlights in red color and you correct it. Souren8 (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh well, most of the time it's been Copilot when I've come across similar situations - I'm more than happy to accept your assurances that you aren't using AI and am grateful that further discussion cleared this up. Blue-Sonnet 14:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely, with pleasure. Souren8 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Dear @Blue-Sonnet I am not sure about what you saw to come to the conclusion / suspicion. Sorry, but it becomes hilarious on the one hand and really serious on the other hand. Do you have a prove test to check? I will be happy to discuss all of these face to face remotely. I will be happy to answer all your questions in written under your physical presence. In that case, I also can say I suspect you yourself use AI. Souren8 (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. Please kindly advice whether upon performing the contribution, can the finalized formulation be checked for copyright compliance? I mean you may think it is compliant, but actually turn out to have copyvios. As for the promise, I am not sure I used that language as it feel childish to me. What I can say is to be much more careful about the compliance and follow in line with policy requirements, in this particular case, specifically requirements of the copyright policy. Finally, as for the identified copyvios I will be happy to address all of them in the referenced article. Thank you again. Souren8 (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You can check for copyright violations on any Wikipedia article at Earwig's Copyvio Detector. You will probably need to sign in; it uses your Wikipedia login details. Not everything it flags is necessarily a copyright violation, since things like titles, quotes, etc can't be reworded, and it doesn't always pick up close paraphrasing - but it's a very good guide.

The line Boud quoted is the second-last in your block appeal. Meadowlark (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Woww, this is great to know, thank you so much. Yes, it has required to sign in. Souren8 (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I've removed or reworded the copyvios; remaining are things like the title of a person, which can't exactly be reworded. Copyvio revdel request tag placed. Meadowlark (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks, I have looked at the revised version. I would have kept some removed parts through paraphrases and ensuring its compliance with the copyright policy. Souren8 (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

My goal was just to remove the copyright violations ASAP, so I didn't take the extra time to rewrite and incorporate things that could be quickly removed. Anything that needs to be in the article can always be added back, after all!

When it comes to paraphrasing, be very cautious about close paraphrasing - in Wikipedia terms that's still a copyright violation. Have a look through that before you add any information to articles! One good strategy to avoid copyvio is to read through your source, do something else for a couple of minutes, and then write down the important points without looking at the source again. Once you've done that, you can fact-check what you've written against the source and make any needed corrections. Unless you have a spectacular memory, what you've written should be an original summary of the source, which you can then incorporate into the article. Meadowlark (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, these are indeed important considerations, well received. One thing I would also ask is related to checking the presence of copyvio in a sentence. Because this source Earwig's Copyvio Detector appears to check through the link with the already incorporated information. What about checking at the level of sentence before incorporation. Is there such an option/tool? Thank you. Souren8 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

What sort of process are you picturing where you'd accidentally end up with copyvios? Can you walk me through what you'd do? If for example you've just found a brand new source you think should be incorporated into the article, the next step would be... Meadowlark (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Assuming that the source is reliable, meaning it is either from official bodies or respected secondary sources, I will check whether there is any related reference in the Wikipedia article (I am not aware of the article categorization in Wikipedia if any). I mean there may be information that can be already outdated and it can be updated or there may be no information so the overall paragraph can be complimented. This would be my first step. Next step, I would be familiarizing myself with the overall content with an aim to extracting summary statements or most relevant valuable part(s). Then, after selecting a specific part, I may use the method you described (I may not use in cases when I feel I have the formulation in my mind, but there may be cases, like laws, resolutions, specilized topics, when the other method may be more useful and applicable); meaning I will read it, leave it a couple of minutes, come back and write it down with my own words, compare with the original version to make sure no distortion of the context of the original source. Then, if there is a way to check the presence of copyvios at the sentence level, I may check before incorporating it into an article. Regardless of using this option, I will check the presence of the copyvios through Earwig's Copyvio Detector . I will also follow my gut feeling, meaning do I feel it is the best way of incorporation because incorporation may result in the need of conducting additional review. So, these are my thoughts at this stage. Souren8 (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

To complete your request, if copyvios accidentally occur in any way , we have already discussed about this today, those added parts should be immediately removed until addressing identified copyvios. Souren8 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think your best option to detect accidental copyvio might be to write new articles in draftspace, and make test edits to existing articles in your sandbox before incorporating them (if it's a big edit - you'd immediately see any problems if you were only adding a couple of sentences). Your check that the information is correct should also be a point you can check for inadvertent copyvio, since you'll have the sources right in front of you. Although I haven't tried it, I think Earwig would also be able to check drafts and your sandbox. Meadowlark (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Just to avoid any misunderstanding: Earwig's automated detector cannot determine that Wikipedia text is free from copyright violations: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Earwig's detector can show that the Wikipedia text likely contains copyright violations. As several people have said, the safest way to avoid copyright violations is to completely hide the original text, wait for at least a few minutes (grab a coffee), and then write a summary without looking at the original text; after that, look at the source, check for errors in the summary and fix them without copy/pasting. Unless you have an extraordinarily good memory for memorising the exact wording of sentences, this will avoid copyright violations. LLMs do have an extraordinarily good memory (in comparison to humans) for memorising the exact wording of sentences. Boud (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, writing new articles in draftspace, or making text edits to existing articles in the sandbox have been indicated as most secure ways to detect / prevent accidental copyvio. Souren8 (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Preventing and detecting copyvios are completely different things. As several people have said on this talk page, and I've re-said effectively the same thing in my own words, the safest way to avoid copyright violations is to completely hide the original text, wait for at least a few minutes (grab a coffee), and then write a summary without looking at the original text; after that, look at the source, check for errors in the summary and fix them without copy/pasting. Nobody (including me) is arguing against using Earwig's detector. Writing articles in draft space until you've got more feedback would certainly be a wise choice. Boud (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree. In my response, by indicating "prevent" I meant other context. I meant that even using the safest way as indicated, writing new articles in draftspace, or making text edits to existing articles in the sandbox will prevent the detection of copyvios in the published article. I believe you have indicated one particular phase, in essence the paraphrasing, I meant the overall process. I hope my point is clear. Again thank you. Souren8 (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. As for "write new articles in draftspace", I suppose you mean this Wikipedia:Drafts and regarding this, "make test (supposedly text) edits to existing articles in your sandbox", I assume you mean this Wikipedia:Using sandboxes for article changes

I also thought about the principles on the development of articles and found a number of sources, including Wikipedia:Principles Wikipedia:Article development Wikipedia:Writing better articles Wikipedia:Core content policies Wikipedia:The perfect article

For instance, for 8th European Political Community Summit the following is written;

This article reads like a press release or a news article and may be largely based on routine coverage. Please help improve it by adding independent secondary sources. (May 2026)

How this assessment has been decided? I mean that there is such a need? This was why I asked about the presence of any article categorization in Wikipedia. I believe there is no mention anywhere on the page about the type of article, it seems everything is treated as an article. But it is written, press release, news article, routine coverage. For what type of article does this indication aim to result in? Souren8 (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not be written like press releases. Click on the intrawiki links and read the explanations to understand the meaning of that pair of sentences. Boud (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by indicating "intrawiki links" as I could find only Help:Interwiki linking where there is seemingly no information about the topic of interest. I am not sure what is referenced through the indication of "pair of sentences". Thank you. Souren8 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

They mean click on the blue text. Blue-Sonnet 20:27, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Great, thank you :) Souren8 (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The bottom line is to remember that this is an encyclopedia - it's meant to be neutral and stick to verifiable facts. Press releases are intended to promote the subject and raise awareness, news articles are often written to gain attention and raise awareness/give a certain POV. Neither of these are encyclopedic and should be avoided.

Encyclopedias write about things that people often already know of, but want to find out more information about it. They should be kept relatively dry and very matter-of-fact. Allow interesting information to speak for itself, you don't need to embellish or promote it in any way.

If you make articles in draftspace, you then submit them to WP:AFC when you feel they're ready for publication - another editor will then review your submission and decide whether it should become a live article. Blue-Sonnet 14:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

This has been explained very clearly and specifically, much appreciated. Thank you so much. Souren8 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Souren8, Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Police of Armenia, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name does not follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Before you move another page, please have a read of the guidelines about page moves. Generally, articles about a country should be named consistently and concisely. Using the official name is often not the most concise name that a country is known by. If you think an article is poorly named, especially if there are lots of similarly named articles, please discuss this on the talk page, first. There may some very good reasons an article is named the way it is, especially if that name has been in place a long time. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for references, I will review them. The reason I provided is that I added its full official name. I am not sure I fully understand how entity's official name cannot be the most concise name, especially as an article title. It is a standard practice beyond Wikipedia, in research literature, to frame the full name in the article for the first appearance and indicate that thereafter shorter version will be used. As for titles, again I am not sure why entity's official name should not have been the most concise name from the beginning. I understand that anyway this should have been discussed and I did not know about the available options. At the same time, I am just learning the available Wikipedia tools and methods that can be used in similar situations. You listed many useful references and I will definitely review them and follow in practice. Thank you. Souren8 (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia frequently uses a commonly recognizable name taken from common usage in English language sources; often these are news reports. While Wikipedia might also use research literature for sources for article, there is no requirement to use an official name. The article about the country known as Armenia, is just that. While the political state of the country might be a Republic, the geographical boundary name omits the political state from the country name. This is the way most Wikipedia articles refer to the countries that they are about. For a list of country names used for Wikipedia articles see the article about the ISO 3166-1 standard for the (short) names of countries. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, this is so valuable to know, this statement from the provided source answers all my questions related to full names that is "ISO 3166-1 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions". With your permission I will ask three more questions on this topic.

1. Should this approach be applied throughout the article? I mean, should the same formulation be used consistently across the entire article? I am asking because the title may appear in a short form, while within the article the same name may appear in both full and short versions. Here I think it would be useful to add the reference you shared in such articles so that no such questions can arise among other readers like I had related to the use of full names.  
2. I also noticed another approach related to the use of country names in the titles of subdivisions that I do not fully understand. I asked about this earlier but have not received an answer that would help me fully understand the approach. For example, one subdivision is titled “Ministry of Internal Affairs (Armenia)”. Why is the country placed in parentheses? Because it turns out not only shortened version but also parenthesized. It appears that one part of the (short) name is separated into brackets. Another example is “Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia”, where the country name is not in brackets.
3. Finally, is there any one source in Wikipedia where I can look at when I have questions. I mean in this talk page you provided so many valuable resources. Is there one unified page from where I can look at when questions arise. Again thank you so much, your guidance helped a lot.

Souren8 (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Addressing your questions in turn:

1. The naming convention for articles about countries generally uses the short version of a country's name. The official name can be, and often is, used in the article, at least once. How a particular country is referred to in a particular article depends on the consensus agreed to by article editors. This is what the article's talk page is for; achieving consensus about how to write each article. What version of a country's name (or other places) is used will often depend on the name(s) commonly used in the article's sources.
2. A country name in parentheses indicates title disambiguation. In the example you give the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Armenia is known as the Ministry of Internal Affairs in many of the articles sources. Because many other countries also have a Ministry of Internal Affairs the suffix (Armenia) is added to make the title unique. In the case of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia, one of the sources uses this name in full, most of the other sources don't use the organization's name in a formal or complete way. In some respects this name is a bit of an exception, but it achieves disambiguation naturally.
3. Wikipedia has a collection of user developed policies and guidelines. These are usually pages in the Wikipedia namespace, there are also some Help pages and also Manual of Style. There are also WikiProjects that coordinate the writing of articles under various topics. For example there is a WikiProject for Countries, as well as one for almost every country in the world. If you are looking for help about an article look at its talk page.

Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

When there are no further questions… I would like to express my sincere appreciation, as since the day I joined, this communication experience with you has been exceptionally valuable, kind, and supportive. I am confident that the Wikipedia team is proud to have you, @Cameron Dewe, as part of its community. Thank you very much, you have genuinely inspired me to continue contributing in the future in Wikipedia and to be a valuable contributor. I hope there will be opportunities to communicate again and to seek your guidance in the future. Wish you all the best. Souren8 (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I really hope that once you're unblocked, you're able to continue to contribute and you find it a rewarding experience. I've read the whole discussion, and I do think you've misinterpreted the intention of a few of the admins you initially interacted with.

Some of the messages may seem brusque to a new editor, but part of that is the seriousness of the efforts to keep Wikipedia as free from vandals, trolls, bigots, copyright infringement, LLM slop, and so on as possible (example, please don't think that I'm calling you any of these things!). In doing so, we try to be as direct and straightforward as possible, without using euphemisms or couching things in too-gentle talk. But at the same time, there are very few things that editors can't come back from, and the community can be very forgiving of people who do some pretty awful things, and nothing you did was even remotely on that scale.

Indefinite blocks seem like a scary thing, mostly because too many people read that as an infinite block or a permanent block. It's good to think of indefinite blocks like triage. When editors of good faith need an indefinite block, it's not meant as a punishment, but to just stop the problem there and then from getting any worse, and then figuring out things after the damage is stopped.

About a year ago, a password I used in too many places was part of a password leak, and someone on the other side of the world got control of my Wikipedia account. My first priority, the second I saw that happen, was to immediately notify WP:AN to have my account indefinitely blocked. Nobody saw it as a punishment, but the priority was to limit damage to the encyclopedia and then deal with the problem once the account was safely blocked. It took me a couple of weeks to sort it out, and that one blemish on my block log isn't a mark of shame, but a reminder to carefully watch my passwords.

It's the same thing with copyright infringement. Even good faith newbie mistakes like copyright infringement can have serious consequences to Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a very deep pocket, which makes litigation a real possibility, where it wouldn't realistically be for, say, someone doing the same thing on their blog. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

The more we communicate, the more I gain the impression that I am speaking with an exceptional and truly dedicated editor. I am also gaining a much clearer understanding of the concerns that you and other administrators deal with daily, especially when people acting in bad faith enter the platform. In my case, the situation felt abrupt and surprising, particularly because I was focused on contributing to an article about an ongoing event. These discussions have been extremely valuable, and all the clarifications and explanations are very much appreciated. I am sure this situation will be the first and last of its kind, and I will do everything on my side to follow the advice and guidance provided here from all administrators. I fully understand and respect the position of the administrators, especially now that I better understand the concerns they had at the time. In this context, I also want to indicate again that there is no need for any review for any administrator. My only point in this context is that probably high volume of persons with bad intentions you encounter daily aiming to do damage to the platform may sometimes affect the experience of contributors with good intentions to contribute. In any case, I hope the overall discussion has addressed all the points raised by the administrators, and I hope the account will be unblocked as soon as possible. In the end, thank you as well for sharing your personal story related to this context, it is sincerely appreciated. I hope we will stay in touch. Souren8 (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Just as a small clarification, I am not an administrator, I am just a member of the community who, as one of the things he does on Wikipedia, tries to give hopefully useful/helpful advice to blocked editors or editors facing some kind of sanction in order to help out all parties.

Basically, the way Wikipedia works is that everyone shares the responsibility. Administrators are basically just regular editors, but regular editors with special tools that the rest of the community has decided to grant them, so they can take care of situations that require an elevated level of trust.

When you're more experienced, you'll find there are all sorts of things you can do to help people build an encyclopedia. Some people write articles. Some people help others get articles done. Some people search for small errors in articles or try to find better sources for information. Some people monitor the help desks and watch out for vandalism and other bad actors. Some people offer constructive arguments in discussions of big picture Wikipedia decisions and policies.

Everybody has a different story for how they got into the project. I'm a working journalist, and for a long time, I only really dipped my toes into Wikipedia "big picture" discussions occasionally, offering my opinions that (I hope) were helpful on some level. A few years ago, a friend of mine who is an admin -- and amusingly does not actually know that I edit or my user name -- was talking about all the crap that administrators get on Wikipedia. He suggested that I stop being a dilettante, and be more involved.

So I did. Article-writing isn't my specialty on Wikipedia, simply because I already write a lot on a daily basis. Since I do a lot of consulting, I'm largely disqualified from two pretty big topics in which I'd be an excellent contributor (I take conflict-of-interest rules extremely seriously). I found that I'm actually pretty good at helping out editors having problems, and it was really quite satisfying to do so. Being a journalist helps here, because I'm already quite used to people saying awful things about me, frequently directly to me, on a daily basis, and people who are blocked are frequently...let's just say not very nice, and it doesn't really get under my skin.

Anyway, while you got off to a slightly rocky start, I'm hopeful that your Wikipedia journey is a fulfilling one for you. You might be surprised how many administrators also got off to slightly rocky starts too! It takes time to understand how the community functions, so be patient and learn how Wikipedia works, bit by bit. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Seconded - whilst there are good admins and bad ones like there are good and bad editors, the admins I know are really good people. Bad ones get weeded out though, it becomes clear over time and the community takes notice of any bad apples that got through the net.

Admins are just experienced volunteers with extra tools at their fingertips. Unfortunately, those tools mean that they're very, very busy and have to do things people don't like (blocks, bans, sanctions). Some focus on blocks, others focus on unblocks, others dispute resolution...

They do all of this for free, in their own spare time, because they love Wikipedia so much that they'll willingly spend hours a day here, when they could be watching TV, playing with their kids or going for a walk.

Honestly, admins barely get praise or recognition; they get shouted at and seen as evil authority figures, despite having no true authority - just extra tasks and responsibility.

When they don't have enough time to thoroughly explain things, editors like myself and CC step in. We have the time that administrators don't always have, even though it's still our own spare time that we're spending here it's something we love doing as well.

Since we both talk to admins a lot on and off Wikipedia, please believe us when we say that it's not malicious or bad faith, it's a lack of time - this is what happens when you have a major website that's entirely created & maintained by volunteers.

This is the reality of Wikipedia.

It's not perfect by any means, but it works. And that's why we stay, and hope you do too. Blue-Sonnet 03:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Just going to say +1 to everything Blue-Sonnet and CoffeeCrumbs have said here as an actual admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Dear @CoffeeCrumbs @Blue-Sonnet @Pppery many thanks for all the points you have mentioned here. This is really very much appreciated and I am just very thankful for these details, nuances, and the overall organization of the work being done here. I have little to add but strive to reach the level of professionalism you and others here have and the overall guidance will support me whenever contributing to the platform. You and others have spend your valuable time to explain all these things to me and it remains from my side to be worthy of it, and it is and will definitely be the case. The start has been kind of harsh but probably worth given what I learned and will learn based on the guidance and information provided. Though for a two-day user it feels kind of heavy, however I find the overall approach, based on your explanation and my experiences here, very professional. It is really about understanding Wikipedia's culture and rules which is natural that takes some time. Once again so very much thank you, it will be a pleasure for me to stay connected. Souren8 (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Souren8, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Meadowlark (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

P.S.: Some pages you might like to check out are:

• Help:Getting started – main welcome page.
• Wikipedia:Introduction – Wikipedia introduction page.
• Wikipedia:Tutorial – Wikipedia editing tutorial.
• Wikipedia:Questions – the "where to ask questions" directory.
• Wikipedia:FAQ – quick answers to the most common questions.
• Wikipedia:Questions – a place for new users to post questions and get answers by volunteers who monitor or frequent the page.
• Wikipedia:Help desk – where volunteers answer questions on how to use Wikipedia. Many new users go there for help too.
• Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user – where a new user can be adopted by an experienced user who will be their mentor.
• Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual – Thorough and intuitive guide to Wikipedia.

(Souren8, I'm leaving this here as it has some helpful links for newcomers - I hope they are of use to you!) Meadowlark (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)