User talk:PlanespotterA320

--Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC) Reply

• w:en:Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2022 July 21#File:Ivan Semyonovich Polbin (General-major of Aviation in the Soviet Air Forces, born 1905).jpg
• c:File talk:Ivan Semyonovich Polbin.jpg

Neutral ground.
This photo of Polbin was published in the "Heroes of the Great Patriotic War" photo gallery on a page of the exact publication I listed in the source section.
No doubt, but I don't have access to that magazine. (or I didn't before you linked [1])
Obviously there was no attribution to the photographer, who remains unknown to this day, as indicated by the fact that I uploaded this photo to Commons and indicated that the author was unknown. So it OBVIOUSLY meets
Any idea how many people confuse "I don't know who the photographer is" with "the photographer is unknown"? People who overlook the photo credit, people who look at a version of something that was cropped or otherwise had the credit removed and assume it's uncredited?
And in cases like these, it's actually impossible to truly prove it. If the same photo was used earlier in another publication with credit, the name of the author would be known, we just haven't found it yet.
I recognized your username so I didn't immediately discredit the claim, but without some way to verify (like the vk.com link that wasn't there when I opened the FfD) and without an explicit statement from a regular (which you are) that the photo appeared in a context without photo credit, I thought it best to open an FfD instead of going straight for CSD F8.
I do not understand WHY you chose to start a file discussion on enwiki instead of simply replacing the fair-use version with this one now that I have discovered the publication history of the photo (I only got pictures of the magazine yesterday). I would reply to your comment on enwiki and replace the photo in the article myself, but as I am banned on enwiki I cannot make those edits to indicate that it is now known that the photo is public domain rendering the fair-use copy completely unnecessary.
Well, I could have simply done NOTHING instead. Maybe I should have! The only reason I'm here at all is because you uploaded the file on Commons with the exact same filename, forcing the file on enwiki into a maintenance category. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Reply

You've been blocked and banned for cross-project disruption and personal attacks on meta-wiki, Wiki Commons, English wiki, and Russian wiki, do you really want to add another ban to your global account or a global ban for you to stop??

Please consider it yourself. I hope you will calm down and think about the problem instead of continuing to lie. Lemonaka (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Reply

Trying to start an RfC about the problematic nature of a userbox that glorifies the SS is not a ban-worthy offense. If you are offended by the RfC, you should be far more offended by a userbox that glorifies a formation under Nazi Germany. Saying that a pro-SS userbox is offensive is not a lie. Nor is trying to explain that both Ukraine AND Russia have retroactive copyright laws.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC) Reply

I'd only like to say that if you could not stop trolling against Ukraine Wikipedia -which even be pointed out by sysop there- and keep trying to cheat others that a normal userbox is a pro-Nazi userbox, you might be blocked soon. Nothing more could be told for that more behaviours will lead to wiki-lawying, which is counter-constructive for my time. Lemonaka (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Reply

A userbox that endorses an SS unit is hardly a normal userbox! Userboxes, about food preferences, preferred computers, hobbies, sports, and areas of expertise are normal userboxes. A userbox that endorses a genocidal military unit that slaughtered women and children isn't "normal". Expressing dismay about the offensive nature of it isn't trolling. I was careful to not say the word "Ukrainian Wikipedia" even once in my most recent RfC. Because this isn't about Ukraine or Ukrainians, but the problematic endoresment of the SS from rouge editors. Explaining that the SS was afiliated with Nazi Germany isn't "cheating", it's a historical fact!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Reply

It wasn't even the same pagename, and the content in the page was completely different! That is NOT a RECREATION!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Reply

I am amazed by your replies with such a lot of tangled text every time, my mind is already stuck by you. I have just surrendered, please go ahead. Lemonaka (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC) Reply

Your unproductive behaviour is disruptive to Meta Wiki and other projects. In accordance with the policy, I hereby prohibit you from further activities in RfCs involving administrators of the Russian Wikipedia, and the Ukrainian Wikipedia. WikiBayer 👤💬 20:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Reply

Care to explain exactly HOW the RfC I made violate RfC policy? Because there is NOTHING prohibiting the RfC I started. The only problem is the problem itself (re: the userbox that glorifies the SS), not that fact that I tried to initiate discussion of it. You know better than to abuse your sysop power to censor legitimate discussion of a real problem. As you admit that you are not an unbiased party in Russia-Ukraine matters you should refrain from utilizing sysop and admin powers in the matter and recuse yourself and let an uninvolved and unbiased party take a look at the problem. You should stop attempting WP:OWN on Wikipedia. I retain my right to express concern about rouge, problematic and dangerous behaviors by other editors.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC) Reply

~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

@X750: I never lied about anything! I wasn't lying about ruwiki when I said it had a problem in it's Crimea coverage (even some Russian Wikipedians admitted there was a problem!). I never lied about Ukrainian Wikipedia! The SS is affiliated with Nazi Germany, so glorification of the SS is glorification of Nazis. The statement that 8814 is a Nazi slogan is backed up by the ADL Nazi slogan database for crying out loud! It's not just my opinion! The fact that the Mubarek zone was a real government project is a fact! (Not a hoax to embaras Moscow). Ruwiki even admitted that the Mubarek project was real despite the censorship attempt! And Yaliboylu (south coast) people are real! I can give sources and links for EVERYTHING! I NEVER denied that RespectCE was a sock, and it is the ONLY sock I have ever made! I demand another sock check for the CK1812 account, because ITS NOT ME! I have no idea why anyone thinks its mine! Also, it is TRUE that Russia and Ukraine have retroactive copyright laws, see the PD-Russia and PD-Ukraine templates that cite the statutes (I've been told I'm "monkeying" to dare suggest that copyright statutes not be ignored). Don't fall for the slander spread by Lemonaka, they have an axe to grind (they can't forgive me writing an RfC about a bad userbox in ukwiki), if you bother to read the RfCs you'd see that I was bringing up legitimate issues and very questionable behaviors! I had to make a deal with the devil so that they would stop the blood libel (they still spread it), and things just spiraled downward from there! And even Amanda admitted that the use of the word "harass" was very liberal! And if just asking people to stop trolling me is evil uinforgivable off-wiki harassment, then it's time to shut down ruwiki altogether!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

Look, I never said anything about the factual accuracy of whatever content dispute you were; nor do I care quite frankly. Your behaviour, on the other hand, is quite shocking. Your accusation of libel is also very-heavy handed, I would advise against using such words with legal connotation. I have also looked at your talk page on the English Wikipedia, you may have never lied about ruwiki or ukwiki, but I don't care. I don't speak either language, but from what I've seen on the English Wikipedia there is not too much we lose should you be banned. I am a mainlander, I hold generally favourable views on the actions of the CCP, but denial of genocide is simply idiotic. Please do not ping me again as I will not be replying again. May you find solace and sanctuary elsewhere. X750 (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

I'll find solace when the blood libel stops on wikipedia. It IS libelious to accuse an entire ethnic group of creating a hoax to embarass their government! It IS libel to say that a Polish Muslim Nazi was Crimean Tatar! It IS libel to say that an ethnic group isn't real! If Russian wikipedia doesn't want me to critisize them, they shouldn't spread baseless racist conspiracy theories! --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

• I am not a Russavia or CK1218 sock! I am willing to confirm my identity to a TRUSTED party (not any Russians or Ukrainians)
• I AM here to build an encyclopedia! I have contributed THOUSANDS of fair-use photos to ruwiki, written HUNDREDS of articles in enwiki, expanded DOZENS of stubs, added HUNDREDS of free media files to Commons (both my own work and public domain works I found), made lists to help calculate copyright expiration dates,
• I am NOT out to delete everything Ukrainian! Or Russian! In fact, I have provided many PD-Russia and PD-Ukraine photos to Commons!
  • I want ALL photos with PD tags, be they Russian or Ukrainian, to provide sufficient sourcing information to demonstrate PD status. Both Russia and Ukraine are signatories to international copyright treaties, so Commons must not disregard their copyright laws!
• Yes, I said Ukrainian Wikipedia has a Nazi problem. A popular userbox that glorifies the SS is BAD! The SS is affiliated with Nazi Germany! Ergo, that userbox was glorification of Nazis! That shouldn't be hard to grasp! Also, it is not a lie that 8814 is a Nazi dogwhistle! I didn't make that up! The ADL has a page about it in the hate symbols database!
• Yes, I said that Russian Wikipedia has a problem in their Crimea content. It is not a lie to complain about malicious slander against a repressed nation! It was VERY malicious and chauvanist of an editor of ruwiki to falsely accuse the Crimean Tatar people of creating a hoax to make the government look bad! Nor is it "trolling" to be deeply offended about Russians claiming Yaliboylu people aren't a real ethnic group! Imagine if someone nominated the article about Ukrainians for deletion on ruwiki and the question "are Ukrainians real" got treated like a legitimate debate for years! Would it be trolling for a Ukrainian to speak up about it?
• Whatever was dragged up from old deleted shitposts on reddit to try to woo the dengists is not relevant to that fact that I am capable of being a positive contributer to Wikipedia!
• "Threatening" to continue editing Wikipedia in areas I'm not banned in is not an actual threat!
• "Threatening" to start an RfC about chauvanism in the wiki is not an illegal threat!
• "Threatening" to cause other editors to give Russian Wikipedia the hairy eyeball by drawing attention to serious problematic behavior is not an illegal threat!
• Mentioning that ruwiki has poor adminship in general is not "canvasing"! Many people shitpost about the poor organization and arbitrarieness in ruwiki! Russian admins can't even agree on what constitutes "public domain" for heavens sake!

--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

@Red-tailed hawk: @Horse Eye's Back: For the love of god delete you comments and accuse me of being friendly to the Russians already! I can't look like I didn't do what they want!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

The reason you have talk page access is to appeal your block, not to make general statements like the above. You've made it very clear that you are indeed not particularly fond of the Russian treatment of Crimean Tatars, and I would not describe you as being politically aligned to "the Russians" (whatever that means).

@1234qwer1234qwer4: Is this the sort of talk page use that's allowed on Meta-wiki while blocked? It feels to me like the user is trying to get around the block from their global ban discussion by instead pinging people here, to her talk page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

I have to be able to rebut the libel against me that claims I have more than one sock, that I "lie" about other wikis, that I "lie" about the actions of other editors (whose statements I provide links to). I HAVE to make up for not bowing in Crimea. It doesn't matter what YOU personally think about me, it matter what the Russians SEE you say about me! Everyday, I MUST give them a reason to not regret not exterminating. They are hungry for revenge, so I do everything I can to make up for embarassing Russia about Crimea. I should have known better than to appeal to Western editors for help about Crimea instead of turning the other cheek! But nothing I wrote were lies! It just makes them more mad to not ignore them! My work in other Soviet articles like has gotten me some tolerance from the Russians, but not forgiveness! I have just made them more angry at the nation, not soothed and accepting of existance! Russians don't understand "Respect existance or expect resistance" its just "obey and submit then we will reconsider your fate"! So of course, I did what they want, but they still haven't changed! And now the Ukrainians are after me to! Lemonaka is just spewing lies and lies and lies about me, they've had a huge axe to grind against me ever since I started the RfC about Ukwiki to make up for the RfC that made the Russians so mad in the first place! And now they have teamed up with the Russians to tear me down, libeling me and my many years of good contributions to Wikipedia!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

• How is letting me reply to people going to hurt the project? I am not troll or vandal! I know you have grudge against me for starting RfC about Ukraine Wikipedia but it was only because I had to because I was in trouble for the Russian RfC! Just let me reply to people. And I still demand another sock check because Amanda must be either mistaken or lying about the CK1812 account, because it is NOT me (just look at their edits! I never write about hurricanes! If I had another sock I would use it to edit Soviet articles and remove the libel from Russian Wikipedia!) and I am TIRED of Lemonaka's tirade against me--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Reply
  • Also I want to tell SummerKrut that there are legitimate uses for using a VPN. There are websites that are not accessible in my country (US) that can be accessed with a VPN - like goskatalog.ru, where I find a lot of public domain photos that I put on Commons. If it's not a VPN issue, maybe it's because another person used a library computer I sometimes use? But either way, I want a re-check, I will confirm my identity to a non-slavic employee of the Wikimedia foundation, and I categorically demand an end to all this mockery of me! They are mocking me in the page right now! And I am capable of working in a collaborative project very well when I don't have to bend backwards and kiss up to the Russians. Just ask Ghost of Kiev who I shared some of my newspaper archive with, or Kursant who I taught about Russian copyright, or Nataev who I help research Uzbek history, etc. I succumbed to the provocations, I took their commands, but I DON'T want to take down wikipedia! I want to add to it! There are so many articles I want to contribute, people I want to apologize to, citations to add, fair-use photos to upload, etc. Letting me talk about things isn't going to hurt wikipedia! You know what hurts Wikipedia? Rewarding the trolls who want me censored because I accidentally embarassed the government. As a Ukrainian, you should understand the position I am in! If you think Ukrainians are treated bad on wikipedia, just look at how ruwiki treats Crimeans! --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

Hi, PlanespotterA320. I don'tell any lies, but all my accusations are based on evidence. One link or two links, an accusation.

To avoid wrongly accusing you of using sock puppetry, I even signed up a private media-wiki with my friends from a fandom community, then using CU tools all together to get CU data. CU is not what you said. If you are just using the same open-proxy, you will never be confirmed as sockpuppetry.

Too long, don't read, I really don't care about your politics views, no matter Ukraine, Tatar or something like that. All the things make me brought that RFC for global banning you are terribly use of sockpuppets, introducing hoaxes among Ukraine related articles on English Wikipedia and denying them again and again.

I will not reply to you further, no matter you email me with another account (sockpuppetry) or ping me here or there. Please be cool, take a deep breath. Though everything happened, I still wish you well for a procedural w:New Year's Sacrifice Lemonaka (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

• I don't know how the heck anyone came to the conclusion that the CK112 was me. Maybe they were using the same library computer as me? I don't know this computer stuff, but I would remember if I wrote created another Wikipedia account and used it to write about crap I don't know anything about. My specialty is Crimea, aviation, and military history. Not science. I am willing to verify me real life identity or whatever it takes to disprove it. I am either being framed or there is some kind of terrible mistake/false positive. You should know just from looking at the account's edit history that it wasn't mine! I lack the technical knowledge to edit science articles. I have NEVER started any hoax on Wikipedia! That is an absurd accusation! I said that there was a Nazi userbox because the userbox endorsed an SS military formation of Nazi Germany! The SS was a military formation of Nazi Germany! That is not a lie! The SS exterminated the Jews and Roma of Europe! That is a fact. I have only ever used ONE sockpuppet, and even then, I never used it for any malicious or vandalism edits! Just boring things like categorization and starting stubs. "New Year's Sacrifice" What the hell does that mean? Is that a threat of some sort? You admit that you are doing all this because I started the RfC (that I didn't even want to start) about the offensive userbox on Ukrainian Wikipedia? Might I note that the discussion was closed not because it was declared a hoax, but because Amanda unilaterally (illegally by Wikipedia procedure) banned me without allowing discussion! And I am already banned on english and russian wikipedia, why on earth do you want me banned from places that I am not a source of problems? It is because you are upset I nominate Ukrainian photos for deletion? If that is it, keep in mind I have nominated far more Russian photos for deletion - only because I want content on Commons to be TRULY public domain and safe for full re-use and to prevent litigation (it's not a lie that agencies like Getty Images love suing people on copyright matters, meaning that Wikipedia has to be careful about copyright). Would it makes things better if I did something for Ukraine? You can read some of the articles I wrote that have since been translated to Ukrainian Wikipedia,, and you will realize I have been a good contributer. the article about the letter of 17 and Gromyko commission are just a few examples. And I just want to say again that I have NEVER, EVER, EVER started a hoax on Wikipedia! Do not accuse me of that again without a link to a specific statment of fact that you consider to be wrong (typos in birthdates don't count) I want to clear my name here and I will do anything to do it! Anything you want!--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 04:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Reply
  • Also going behind the back of the wiki instead of filing a proper sockpuppet request that requires citing evidence of similar behavior is very strange. I still demand another checkuser, because ITS NOT ME! Do a proper sock check, not just this "my favorite stewards say so" crap.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Reply
    • • And if you are going to bother nominating someone for a global ban, the very LEAST you can do it bother to read things well! If you think reading my rebuttals is a waste of your time, withdraw the RfC then! I don't even understand why you have such a grudge against me! We could have saved ukrainian wikipedia from a big source of embarassment, but instead you harass and retaliate against me any try to dig up every fucking piece of dirt on me you can! You have no idea how much trouble you have caused! The demons are coming for me now! I can't fight them anymore thanks to you! --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

@Dcs002: I saw your comment and was very confused by it. I did not make any major controversial edits with my sock RespectCE, just boring stuff like adding author attribution to fair-use photos. It was only when I filed an RfC about a userbox on Ukrainian Wikipedia endorsing the "feats" of the SS (and the fact that some editors there use the 8814 Nazi slogan - this is not something I am making up, the ADL database has an entry on the meaning of that number) that the account was identified as a problem, not the mainspace edits themself. My edits with it were only reverted because I was socking with it, not because they were malicious content itself. All my controversial edits, from questioning the Uyghur genocide to force recognition of the Crimean Tatar genocide and score karma points from the reds for obeying their commands, was done with my original PlanespotterA320 account. The other behaviors that have attracted controversy, some very legit controversy (ie, using respectCE as a sock for little edits I really wanted to make and making bad edits to Uyghur articles) and some very not much (by saying that Russian and Ukraine have retroactive copyright laws and are signatories to international copyright treaties, "copyright trolling" by asking for publication information on old photos). I am not the CK1218 editor and still don't understand why they think it is me (just look at the edits they made, completely different than my kind of edits!). I did start an RfC about problematic content in ruwiki, I did not lie anywhere in that RfC, and I suffered for it. The article about the Mubarek zone has not been objected to in any other language wiki and the editor who accused the Crimean Tatar people of creating it as a hoax to make the government look bad has not apologized for the accusation, which I still maintain was a very chauvanist and dangerous thing to accuse because it could lead to more collective punishment. I created the article knowing that it was an Uzbek project and did not expect Moscow to be angered by it. The other behaviors on ruwiki that I was punished for calling "chauvanist" was the deletion nomination going for years arguing that Yaliboylu people aren't real, which is very very very disrespectful - trying to erase the fading memory of a dying people. I KNOW that if I nominated the articles about the Armenians, Jews, or Uyghurs for deletion claiming that they never existed I would be banned ASAP, but only after I brought attention to the discussion via the RfC did ruwiki conceed that Yaliboylu people are not a hoax. I never spread any hoaxes on Wikipedia. I can provide sources for all statements of fact that I make - be it the Mubarek project, Yaliboylu culture, etc. In regards to my social media activity, I do not stalk anyone (the only Wikipedians on social media I communicate with are mutual research friends, like Andrey Simonov who I occasionally message with aviation questions and book suggestions, and others on VK). I did shitpost on reddit that mentioned other editors in a disrespectful manner purely hoping to get some sympathy from subs full of people who I felt needed to be soothed to accept Crimeans, but I never called for anyone to be harmed and all statements of action "threatened" were actions that are not illegal, such as "threatening" to file an RfC in a hypothetical situation if anyone made hypothetical nasty edits, "threatening" to keep writing content that Lemonaka would not object to on Wikipedia [where I am not blocked in most wikis and permitted to write], "threatening" to file deletion nominations on photos with PD templates that lack sufficient source info [this can easily be avoided by providing source information to photos uploaded to Commons in the first place]. I was never told before hand to not write about the Mubarek project or to not file an RfC about the issue in Russian Wikipedia, and after the first RfC about the issue on Ukrainian Wikipedia, Lemon later said I could file one again, but then went all ad hominem on me anyway and have been harboring a grudge for bringing attention to the bad userbox. I bear no hostility to the Ukrainian people and I now consistently obey the demands from the Russians who say what I need to do to pay off my blood debt for humiliating them, so I have been a good contributer to the Uzbek wiki where I belong and worked hard to find public domain photos for their articles. If you have any questions about my edits or content you can ask them here or email me or write here. If I am going to be banned, it should not be for saying that it is offensive to say that Yaliboylu people aren't real, explaining that it is bad to accuse Crimean Tatars of collectively spreading a hoax to humiliate the government, complaining about glorification of the SS, or "copyright trolling" but for the actually bad things I did, but it looks like most people are voting "support" for those reasons--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

1. It is not a lie to say that celebrating the "feats" of an SS unit is glorifcation of Naziism. It is an undisputed fact that the SS was a military formation of Nazi Germany. 2. It is not a lie to say that Russian Wikipedia has problems with content on Crimean Tatars, which Russian editors have made bad-faith deletion nominations and trolling of. Accusing an ethnic group of not being real and accusing an ethnic group of creating a hoax to make the government look bad is NASTY, CHAUVANIST, and DESPICABLE. There is nothing "civil" about editors who spread such malicious rumors, so complaining about the hostile nature of such behaviors is not "trolling". 3. I AM NOT CK1812!!! Just look at the edit history - ZERO similarity! I don't edit about hurricanes! They did! I edit about Soviet Union, Aviation, and Crimea! They didn't! From the page about checkusers "Most dialup and many DSL and cable IP addresses are dynamic, meaning they might change every session, every day, every week, every few months, or hardly ever. Unless the access times are immediately before and after each other, be cautious in declaring a match based on IP address alone. Experienced check users will learn to recognise if an ISP changes frequently or occasionally. Proxy IP addresses might not be a match, depending on the size of the organisation running the proxy (per whois output). If it's an ISP proxy, it is not so likely to indicate a match. (Note – some users, particularly those involved in technical matters, can help identify whether an IP is likely to be a proxy, or is likely to be static, fast, or slow changing.)" 4. I said some things about Uyghurs that are out of line, BUT I stand by my statements that Adrian Zenz is anti-semetic based on his statements about Jews being hellbound in his theology book. I am not the only person so recognize such behavior as anti-semetic. Rational Wiki, which recognizes Uyghur genocide, conceeds that Zenz is anti-semetic. His statements about Jews getting "refined in God's firey furnace" are public record in his book. So Adrian Zenz is anti-semetic in the same sense that the Galacian SS was affiliated with Nazi Germany; not a pleasant truth for those with political motivations, but a substantiated fact. 5. Also want to note here that it is not a hoax to say that 8814 is a Nazi slogan. The ADL (not exactly a Russian propaganda outlet) has an entry on it in their hate symbols database. 6. I am not a vandal. I have made hundreds of thousands of good edits on wiki that are not contested. The edits I made with the sock were not contested on a factual basis, but reverted only due to being made by sock. 7. Filing deletion nominations on files lacking sufficient source information is not trolling. The whole point of Commons is to be a source of FREE photos, not an archive of orphaned works waiting for authors to be found. 8. I am not a Russophobe or out to humiliate Russia. I lost a lot of karma points and incurred a blood debt to them when I made article about Mubarek zone and got too involved in the Crimea articles. I have been working on repaying it by obeying the commands and improving content for Russia like finding public domain photos and compiling lists of Soviet photocorrespondents and saying in Uzbek wiki where i belong. 9. I did not intend to harass anyone. I made bad choices and felt the need to vent and was very embarassed that hawk supported unbanning me, which brings huge trouble for me. It is important that he and others know that I act in good faith and try my best and that a lot of the edits I don't want to make but have to because I did not stay away from Crimea and have to pay for that. I never threaten to hurt anyone. And when they threaten me, nobody does anything except mock me for obeying the demons! 10. It is not against the rules to appeal to social media to suggest that existing wikipedia articles get translated to languages that you don't speak and share ideas for articles to be created. I have published many article suggestions and translation requests and never gotten in trouble for it before. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Reply

• Reviewed requests for unblock
• Requests for unblock