Jump to content

User talk:Tmhm: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tmhm (talk | contribs)
238 edits
Tmhm (talk | contribs)
238 edits
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
== August 2010 ==
<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for your [[WP:DE|disruption]] caused by your engagement in an [[WP:EDITWAR|edit war]]&#32;at [[:Armenian Genocide]]. During a dispute, you should first try to [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|discuss controversial changes]] and seek [[WP:CON|consensus]]. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request [[WP:PP|page protection]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 19:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)</div>{{z9}}<!-- Template:uw-ewblock -->

{{unblock reviewed|1=I have discussed about the change in the talk page and gave substantial evidence about the need of change. But this Kansas Bear editor has a personal hatred of me and he reverted my edit without discussing in the talk page. I demand my ban to be lifted.|decline=You have shown no evidence that you understand why you have been blocked, or that you will accept consensus. Also demanding anything is unlikely to get you anywhere. &nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Tivedshambo|<span style="color:#7F0000">'''&nbsp;Tivedshambo&nbsp;'''</span>]]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 20:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)}}

:Sarcasm such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATmhm&action=historysubmit&diff=381653874&oldid=381553787 this] will not improve your unblock chances either.&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Tivedshambo|<span style="color:#7F0000">'''&nbsp;Tivedshambo&nbsp;'''</span>]]&nbsp;([[User Talk:Tivedshambo|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/Tivedshambo|c]]) 20:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

::Can you have a look when you have time? --[[User:Tmhm|Tmhm]] ([[User talk:Tmhm#top|talk]]) 21:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|1=I tried to explain to Favonian below that I thought 1RR rule was about undo'ing from History page that's why I made the second change by editing the page. As I said to the admin I understand the rule and I will not violate it, this way I can not even answer in the Talk Page discussions. I do not know what is wrong with the word "demand", it is simply used as "ask for", I am not sure why it was considered offensive/impolite. I removed that sarcasm from my talk page later which was a momentary emotional reaction, I removed that myself you can see in the history|decline=I'm sorry, your explanation makes little sense. After being blocked for edit warring on a 1RR article, you ''immediately'' returned to the same article and made the exact same edit twice more. I can't fathom why you through that was acceptable. I would suggest you make '''no''' more edits to the article itself until you have formed a consensus with the other editors on the article's talk page. I'm sorry if there is a strong disagreement, but your inability to understand our policies on this make it impossible to unblock you. [[User:Kuru|<span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#cd853f; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Kuru</span>]] [[User talk:Kuru|<span style="color:#f5deb3">''(talk)''</span>]] 21:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed|1=I understand why I was blocked and I genuinely did not know it was about editing, I thought 1 revert meant the Undo'ing process from the history which shouldn't be used more than once, that's why I did my second edit from the Edit section and immediately came the block, I did not understand it was about 1RR rule at once I thought it was about something I said on the talk page. I am a new user, around 1 month, I have not encountered the 1RR rule before. I acknowledge the rule now and I will not repeat it. That is why I am asking a reconsideration as blocked for 1 week means I am out of the discussion in the Talk Page. If I violate the rule again I will not even appeal the block. So I will be glad if my block is reconsidered, I will not appeal again as this is 3rd but I do hope it will be lifted, you old editor may be well aware what 1RR means but I simply didn't know, I don't say this to create an excuse, I honestly didn't, now I do.|decline=In the discussion below, you offer to break a different rule, disrupting the article in a different way. If, as you say, you are not yet familiar with Wikipedia's rules, it might be a good idea for you to spend a little time reading them, so there won't be any more unfortunate misunderstandings. A week's block is not very long, and will offer you time for reading the rules. [[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]])</span> 21:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed|1=I do not offer to break another rule, I said reverting a POV to nPOV requiring consensus, without formerly established form not reached through consensus, simply encourages such conduct but I did not suggest I will do it, I even said it's not healthy. 1 week is indeed long as I will not be able to participate in the discussion I started about the very topic. I acknowledge why I was blocked, I will not violate that rule as I know it. Please reconsider lifting the block.|decline=As per your discussion below, especially ''"one man with the [[WP:TRUTH|truth]] (wikilink mine, so read it) constitutes majority"'' ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]&nbsp;'''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 12:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)}}

== Comment on your block ==

You have been warned repeatedly and even blocked, yet you violate the [[WP:1RR]] which is in effect for this article. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 19:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

: I have discussed about the change in the talk page and gave substantial evidence about the need of change. But this Kansas Bear editor apparently has a personal hatred of me and he reverted my edit without discussing in the talk page and calling my attempts "silly, pathetic, pueril" which is a personal attack towards me on user talk page. I demand the ban to be lifted. --[[User:Tmhm|Tmhm]] ([[User talk:Tmhm#top|talk]]) 20:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

::You have presented your case, and that's good, but something like half a dozen editors have disagreed with you, and only your sock has supported you. This indicates that there is a consensus ''against'' that additional word. When you insist on re-adding it, it constitutes edit warring, and it violates the 1RR on this article. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 20:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

:::I explained why the revert needs to be done, one man with the truth constitutes the majority. The previous wording has not been done through consensus either. When you make a change that is not favourable to the current POV-pushed form of the article, Armenian editors simply flood the talk page with No's and as such the kind of consensus can not be reached in any case. I can ask Turkish editors to flood the page with Yes's but that's simply an unhealthy way of organizing things. I was thinking the 1RR rule was about undo'ing a previous revert that's why I edited the page on my second change of the page. If you can lift my ban I will not violate that rule, 1 week is really too long I can not even answer the Talk Page discussion this way. I hope you understand. --[[User:Tmhm|Tmhm]] ([[User talk:Tmhm#top|talk]]) 20:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

:::Can you please have a look when you have time? --[[User:Tmhm|Tmhm]] ([[User talk:Tmhm#top|talk]]) 20:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

:::: Leaving a message to talk pages of Turkish editors to help you change the consensus is illegal due to [[WP:CANVASS]], you may be blocked. [[User:Kavas|Kavas]] ([[User talk:Kavas|talk]]) 20:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

::::: I did not say I will. And the response was to Favonian. --[[User:Tmhm|Tmhm]] ([[User talk:Tmhm#top|talk]]) 21:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

::::: As you can be careful regarding [[WP:CANVASS]] rule, you should also be careful not to make more than 1 Revert in 24 hours. [[User:Kavas|Kavas]] ([[User talk:Kavas|talk]]) 21:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

:::::: Sorry I guess Kavas is something like SineBot. Thank you Kavas. --[[User:Tmhm|Tmhm]] ([[User talk:Tmhm#top|talk]]) 21:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

::::::: Kavas is an editor - your talkpage is wide open for comment, especially when you have an unblock request making it very public for many/all editors to edit. Treat people like people. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]&nbsp;'''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 12:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

== September 2010 ==
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments|delete or edit]] legitimate talk page comments, as you did at [[:Talk:Armenian Genocide]]. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. If you would like to experiment, please use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tpv2 --> [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 11:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

: As I see Kansas Bear is not an administrator hence he can not give me a final warning, I chose to remove that instead of answering him in the same tone, but if that's what's expected, it's fine. [[User:Tmhm|Tmhm]] ([[User talk:Tmhm#top|talk]]) 11:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

::Any editor may issue warnings, though it is up to the administrators to enforce them. Don't try to engage in a "tit-for-tat"; you have already been blocked twice and patience is running out. [[User:Favonian|Favonian]] ([[User talk:Favonian|talk]]) 11:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

::: Okay I will issue him a warning too then it is up to administrators to enforce it. If you want to block me for standing up for the injustice you guys are enforcing by only allowing opinions from one side of a conflict and somehow attribute them authority status over other by threats as "patience running out", go on. [[User:Tmhm|Tmhm]] ([[User talk:Tmhm#top|talk]]) 11:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

==Slm==
Riske girmeyin. Armenian Genocide'nın Türkçe karşılığı Ermeni Soykırımı'dır. Sözde... değildir. [[WP:NPOV]] kuralına da aykırıdır. Türkçe Vikide bile kabul edilmez. Ancak inkar tezinin konteksti içinde ''Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı'' teriminin üretildiği ve terih edenlerin varolduğu anlatılabilir. Diğer kullanıcıların da görüşlerini almamız lazım. Soykırım ve onun inkar tezleri ileri sürülmeden önce ([[Mustafa Kemal]]'in kullandığı fezahat kelimesini kenara koyarım şimdi) Ermeni Kıyımı, Ermeni Kıyamı, Ermeni Kırımı gibi terimler kullanılıyordu. Günümüzde de kullananlar var. [[User:Takabeg|Takabeg]] ([[User talk:Takabeg|talk]]) 11:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

:Riske girilen birşey yok. Türkiye'de bu olay "Sözde Ermeni Soykırımı" diye bilinmektedir, diğer bilinen şekli "1915 Olayları" dır. Bunu Türkçe bilen herkes bilir. WP'nin commonality kuralı, ki bu kural nPOV'un da üzerindedir bu açıkça belirtilmiştir, gereği Türkçe karşılık bu şekilde kullanılması icap ediyor. O yüzden benim editlerime karışmazsan sevinirim, bu ısrarınla neyi amaçladığın pek anlaşılır gibi değil Ermeni propagandasına dönmüş bir sayfayı bazı bariz hatalardan temizliyorum. Konuşma sayfana yazdığıma da bir bak onu da bekliyorum bu editler devam edecekse. [[User:Tmhm|Tmhm]] ([[User talk:Tmhm#top|talk]]) 11:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

== English Wikipedia ==

Please note that this is English Wikipedia, and all communication should be in English. It is a mistake to think that talk page discussions are private conversations: all members of the community should be able to read them. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 11:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

== Hemen bakıyorsun buraya ==

Sana benim editlerimi değiştirme demedim mi? Adres verir misin bir yüz yüze konuşalım bu ısrarın hakkında. [[User:Tmhm|Tmhm]] ([[User talk:Tmhm|talk]]) 11:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
: No :)) [[User:Takabeg|Takabeg]] ([[User talk:Takabeg|talk]]) 11:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
==Problems with upload of File:Sarkozy-platini.jpg==
Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Sarkozy-platini.jpg]]'''. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on [[:File:Sarkozy-platini.jpg|this link]], then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]].

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
* [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]]
* [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]]

Thank you for your cooperation. --[[User:ImageTaggingBot|ImageTaggingBot]] ([[User talk:ImageTaggingBot|talk]]) 14:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
==Problems with upload of File:Sarkozy-platini.Jpeg==
Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Sarkozy-platini.Jpeg]]'''. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on [[:File:Sarkozy-platini.Jpeg|this link]], then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]].

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
* [[Wikipedia:Image use policy]]
* [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags]]

Thank you for your cooperation. --[[User:ImageTaggingBot|ImageTaggingBot]] ([[User talk:ImageTaggingBot|talk]]) 14:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

== UEFA Euro 2016 ==
Selam, habervitrini yerine yabancı bir kaynak bulabilir misiniz? İngilizce kaynaklar en-wiki'de tercih edilmeli eğer bulunabiliyorsa. Eğer bulunamazsa tercümesi yapılıyor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources İyi çalışmalar...
(Selam, can you provide an English source instead of habervitrini as this is en-wiki. If you cannot, it should be translated as described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. İyi çalışmalar...) [[User:Kavas|Kavas]] ([[User talk:Kavas|talk]]) 15:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
==License tagging for File:Sarkozy platini.jpg==
Thanks for uploading [[:File:Sarkozy platini.jpg]]. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags|image copyright tags]] to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All|this list]], click on [[:File:Sarkozy platini.jpg|this link]], then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]]. Thank you for your cooperation. --[[User:ImageTaggingBot|ImageTaggingBot]] ([[User talk:ImageTaggingBot|talk]]) 18:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

== Blocked for edit-warring again ==

<div class="user-block"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' from editing for a period of '''2 weeks''' for edit-warring at [[Armenian Genocide]]. A limitation to one revert per day is not an entitlement. When your previous block expired you returned to the behaviour which caused it. When this block expires, do not return to this type of behaviour. The next block, if there is one, will be very much longer.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 22:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block -->

{{unblock reviewed|I did not violate a 1 revert a day rule, I made the first revert on 10:52, 8 September 2010 - and the second on 22:44, 9 September 2010 that is over 36 hours; so I would like to know which rule I broke, this block shall be lifted.|decline=While I concur that you did not make more than one revert in a 24 hour period, by the letter of the rule, you most certainly engaged in an edit war nonetheless - you repeated a disputed edit, and The fact that you repeated your edit summary word for word is also indicative of an edit war. The block notice above tells the tale; you were blocked for edit warring, and then immediately edit warred once your block expired. This is problematic, and hence this block is longer than those previous. The next one may be longer still; rather than continually being blocked, you may wish to review our policies and consider how to make your point without violating them. Best, [[User:Ultraexactzz|UltraExactZZ]] <sup> [[User_talk:Ultraexactzz|Said]] </sup>~<small> [[Special:Contributions/Ultraexactzz|Did]] </small> 00:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)}}
Shall it? Please read above: "A limitation to one revert a per day is not an entitlement. When your previous block expired you returned to the behaviour which caused it." Also, see [[WP:3RR]]: "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." And lastly, see [[WP:STRETCH]].

:This "shall it?" tone displays your bias for this case. The 1 revert rule has not been violated, an edit war has not been engaged by me but by those who reverted my edit, the case has been discussed in the talk page as well. In such cases, taking sides with a particular point of view by censoring/silencing people through the block system which is everything but it's intended use, turns WP into a POV paradise, much like the article in question is. As such, the block shall be lifted, if WP does not only consist of editors who enforce [[Western world| Western]] POV's as all admins involved were from - speaks for itself. [[User:Tmhm|Tmhm]] ([[User talk:Tmhm#top|talk]]) 03:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|1=There has not been a consensus for the previous wording, and those who reverted my edit did not discuss it either. Hence when one suggests I am engaging in an edit war and not those who revert my edit, it is clearly taking sides with one point of view of the discussion. I provided the reason of the edit with proofs, the case is a prime example of commonality. The WP does not at least claim to enforce a Christian or Armenian agenda hence there shall be no reason for this block and I am asking it to be lifted.|decline=You've still shown no understanding of the reason you were blocked. To try to put it simply: Edit warring is ''unacceptable'', period, and you will face a longer block every time you do it, even if you are convinced you are absolutely and totally right. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed|1=I have already explained that if there was an edit war, it has not been engaged by me but by those who reverted my edit, the case has been discussed in the talk page as well. I do not understand why my unblock request is denied with that invalid rhetoric. In such cases, taking sides with a particular point of view by censoring/silencing people through the block system which is everything but it's intended use, turns WP into a POV paradise, much like the article in question is. As such, the block shall be lifted, if WP does not only consist of editors who enforce Western POV's as all admins involved were from - speaks for itself. Please lift the block.|decline=Saying that admins that do not unblock you must be biased will not win you an unblock. Instead, there is the possibility that an admin may review your request, and note that you violated [[WP:EDITWAR]], which is not about a number of edits in any time period, but about a pattern of behavior. Your pattern of behavior was unacceptable, and you have given no indication that you understand why your pattern of behavior was unacceptable, and what changes you intend to make to your behavior you intend to make to bring it into line with expected behavior. This has nothing to do with the substance of what you are trying to add or change in Wikipedia articles. It is '''only''' about the methods you use to cause those changes to happen. Confusing your behavior with your ideas is the source of the problem here. You were blocked for behavior. [[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 04:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)}}

{{unblock reviewed|1=I fail to understand why some admins keep saying that I engaged in an edit war, while those who reverted my edits engaged in that edit war and they should be blocked, not me. I do not need to understand the reasons of the block, as censorship is not something I understand, I object to it. I provided verifiable information, presented it in the talk page, and made the edit. If WP is not a place that somehow possesses the role of enforcing [[Western world| Western]] POV in articles, which the article in question is a gigantic example of, there is no reason to say that I engaged in an edit war and not those who reverted my edit. This block is not about an edit war because those who engaged in it are still unblocked, but it is about pushing a Western POV by admins who attempt to censor the opposing view. As such, I ask my block to be reviewed by a non-biased admin and lifted.|decline=Seeing as although I'm from the West, I am not looking at the actual EDIT CONTENT, I am looking at BEHAVIOUR, I feel free to continue looking at this unblock request. You say that you noted your edit on the talkpage, then made it. Did you reach [[WP:CONSENSUS]] for that edit first, or just say "I'm going to do THIS whether you like it or not". This is your 3rd block for [[WP:EW]], which is why it's escalating, and because you seem to enjoy a [[WP:BATTLE|battleground]], I will suggest that your '''next''' similar block will effectively be indefinite - you simply do not get what this project is about. ([[User talk:Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">talk→</font>]]<span style="border:1px solid black;">'''&nbsp;[[User:Bwilkins|BWilkins]]&nbsp;'''</span>[[Special:Contributions/Bwilkins|<font style="font-variant:small-caps">←track</font>]]) 07:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)}}
Well, I'd be glad to, but you already branded me as "biased" even though literally the only fact I know about the entire situation is that you have repeatedly re-instated the same edit, so I suppose I can't help you. It's beyond me how I can be biased about an edit for which I do not even have any context besides the general topic, but you're the expert on being conspired against, it appears. Well, surely it's only a coincidence that a bunch of people plotting against you are the only ones who have come to this page. It couldn't possibly be that making the same edit over and over is an exact example of edit warring. By the way, future unblock requests would benefit hugely from a quick reading of [[WP:NOTTHEM]]. - [[User:Vianello|Vianello]] ([[User talk:Vianello|Talk]]) 06:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
:All admins who came to this page, including yourself, were from admins with a clear Western POV; (Denmark, England and the U.S.), perhaps you have an idea or two what [[Western world|West]] stands for. I am also pretty sure what you know is not limited to what you said it is, but presenting it as if you were merely judging "from the outside" without any knowledge of what was going on whatsoever must surely add an "objectivity" sort of feeling in the argument; the old editors more than often use these tricks. Perhaps if you checked(used loosely, as I know you did) you would notice that I did not make continuous edits, but on the contrary I corrected the wrong wording that was put by editors that clearly belong to one side of the conflict, those who do not even speak the language the wording is subject to. But who cares about these when you can just jump to a convenient conclusion to censor an opposing view to a western POV, right. Oh and about NOTTHEM, a block can be unjust, as in this case. If one suggests that administrators are immune to mistakes, bias or errors, I shall remind you that they are also human-beings, regardless of how you view yourself as, most probably contrary to your current opinion about that.
::All right. Explain to me how my national origin (or that of any other admin, for that matter) impacts my interpretation of the number of times you have repeated an edit. I count [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=383920420 1], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=383620930 2], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=381748550 3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=381728025 4], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=381459386 5], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=381383097 6], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=381371579 7], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=381368128 8], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide&diff=prev&oldid=381355646 9] repetitions of this individual edit, assuming I did not miss any. Do you mean to say if I shared your view, whatever it is, I would count fewer of them? Also, please explain how "I corrected the wrong wording" contradicts the claim that you made continuous edits. Explain how I could perceive your view as "opposing" mine when I do not know what your view is, the implications of your repeated edit, have any opinion on the individual edit you have been repeating, or know what "Sözde" means/is (I gather by context it's someone's name?). Lastly, if I am so determined to somehow censor you, why have I not declined your any of your unblock requests or otherwise taken action against you? Surely some nefarious conspirator would have had a fairly easy time just blocking talk page access for unblock process abuse. I have a pretty strong theory as to how this is going to go down, of course. I suspect you're going to claim, without evidence, that I am in fact fully aware of whatever it is you're trying to argue, and that every single administrator who doesn't give you your way is "biased" by whatever grounds are convenient at the moment. After all, it's far, far easier to divert an argument into an attack on someone's motives ([[Genetic fallacy]]) when you don't burden yourself with the difficulty of having to actually prove them. Of course, in the end, even were this true, even if you somehow conjured up some kind of incontrovertible proof that every single administrator who has ever edited this talk page has an objectively provable malicious agenda against you and all you have ever stood for, it would still not make trying to force the exact same edit nine times, even after being blocked for it partway through the process, acceptable editing behavior. Even if you call it "correcting". Even if your "correction" is 100% correct and legitimate. But I'm spending my time on this because some part of me really hopes you'll pleasantly surprise me, which would be great. [[WP:NOTTHEM]] has been cited because your block is, as it has been stated, been over '''how''' you have been editing, not '''what''' edits you have made. You have yet to explain how a string of nine repeated edits are not continued edit warring. That, not some ultimately irrelevant, unsubstantiated, and unprovable accusation of "censorship", is the issue, and you have diverted it into [[Ad hominem#Ad hominem circumstantial|circumstantial ad hominem]]. My impatience and frustration with that practice is the sole bias afoot here, at least on my part. It also led me to approach you in a hostile manner which I do feel was undue, however. The apparently cavalier manner of your unblock requests ("demanding" an unblock, later proclaiming that it "shall" be lifted), not some nameless and undefined bias, is what led me to be sarcastic. However, it's not my intention to insult you or attack you, so on my final note I do wish to apologize for my overly brusque introduction. A tendency to make impolite comments in a heated moment, which I later regret, is one of my longstanding personality flaws, and no one innately deserves to be victim to that. - [[User:Vianello|Vianello]] ([[User talk:Vianello|Talk]]) 09:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

== A reminder ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenian_Genocide&diff=386685733&oldid=384700577 This] comment makes me think that you have not understood the reasons for which you were earlier blocked. You were already advised of the arbitration committee decision covering matters related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, &c, which covers the Armenian Genocide topic, to refresh your memory it is here: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2]]. Please don't return to [[WP:EW|edit-warring]]. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 23:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

: I never engaged in edit-warring and there was no consensus about the current wording. But thank you for your interest, nevertheless. [[User:Tmhm|Tmhm]] ([[User talk:Tmhm#top|talk]]) 07:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

== October 2010 ==
== October 2010 ==
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop. If you continue to [[WP:MOVE|move]] pages to bad titles contrary to [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|naming conventions]] or [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], as you did to [[:Turkish invasion of Cyprus]], you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. <!-- Template:uw-move3 --> [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]] [[User talk:Cplakidas| ✍ ]] 17:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px]] Please stop. If you continue to [[WP:MOVE|move]] pages to bad titles contrary to [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions|naming conventions]] or [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]], as you did to [[:Turkish invasion of Cyprus]], you may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia. <!-- Template:uw-move3 --> [[User:Cplakidas|Constantine]] [[User talk:Cplakidas| ✍ ]] 17:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:06, 4 October 2010

October 2010

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Turkish invasion of Cyprus, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Constantine ✍ 17:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I move the page to the appropriate title as per the UN documentation. I do not expect fanatical Greeks to be fine with it so please keep your block threats to yourself. Tmhm (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Turkish invasion of Cyprus. TbhotchTalk C. 17:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(UN RESOLUTION 353 (1974) 3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus) - This is the NPOV. Those who enforce the Greek POV upon WP is violating the WP:NPOV Tmhm (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tmhm&oldid=388727170"