Hello Meowy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! —Khoikhoi01:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This edit summary "(→Request for Comment - inverted commas added to help Badbilltucker grasp the nuances of English.) " is uncivil and a personal attack. Consider this your last warning due to your other behaviour on Talk:Turkish Van. If you continue such behaviour, you will be blocked to prevent it. pschemp | talk21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Point of disagreement
For what little it's worth, it should be noted that Pschemp, as an admin, can do that without consulting anyone. I would not myself in this instance, but I am not her. I am writing for a separate purpose, to perhaps try to make it clearer to you why several other people do not share your apparent love of the pure-white type. There is clear evidence that pure-white cats, through some genetic arrangement, are more likely than other cats to be genetically deaf. If you review the three stated detriments of the breed, their loudness, fondness for breaking things, and jealousy of their "territory", all three of these can be fairly easily seen to be possibly related to a hearing impairment, either of the animal itself or of those animals with whom it has to most regularly communicate. Should the animal have any coloring whatsoever, then they are remarkably less likely to be hearing-impaired. Considering that the three cited detriments are what made some one source describe these animals as bad house pets, I can say that I personally think that being pure-white may well be in and of itself a survival disadvantage, particularly for an animal which, to some extent, exists today primarily as a human house pet. To people who seek the survival and prospering of the individual animal as being of paramount importance, rather than the survival of a particular genetic trait, your insistence upon attempting to preserve the monochrome white cat, even at the individual animal's increased likelihood of not succeeding in the domestic animal area, sounds uncomfortably similar to Adolf Hitler's eugenics programs. I want you to realize I am not comparing you personally to Hitler, simply pointing out how someone else could see a similarity between the two positions. By advocating the forced continuation of this genetically-disadvantaged type of animal, many cat lovers could see you as putting some outside consideration (in this case, national pride in a national symbol) over and above the health of the individual animal, which many animal lovers, including myself and possibly Pschemp, find deeply unpleasant. Particulary when the probability of genetic disadvantage can be greatly decreased by a small, purely cosmetic change, in this case, adding some coloring to the animal. It should be noted that the Turkish Van does not suffer from noticably high incidences of deafness. In fact, I could argue that the Turkish employee who gave the two British women the cats was perhaps trying to preserve the beloved Turkish cat by finding two of the more adoptable animals, which would rule out the pure-white deaf ones, and having the women take them out and make them as popular overseas as they are in Turkey. Your repeated insistence that only the genetically-disadvantaged, increased-probability deaf pure white animal is somehow the only "pure" van cat can thus be seen by these individuals as being, in effect, an attempt to justify creating animals whose lives could be made easier and possibly more fulfilling without the intervention of the "breed police". I can well understand how you place a different priority on things than either Pschemp, who, as a cat breeder, clearly loves animals, and I, who at one point during a local flood was housing 12 animals (11 cats, 1 dog) in a four-room apartment, do. In fact, I could possibly even go so far as to say that the pure-white type may be losing an evolutionary battle to the genetically-less-disadvantaged other kind. Also, I am myself sufficiently knowledgable about felines in particular to know that coloring in and of itself is in no cases cause to consider that animals are in any way of a different breed, and, on that basis, discount your claim of the "pure-white" breed as being inconsistent with external evidence. As you will note, I spend a few hours trying to improve an article about the pure-white animal to give it a chance to be seen by a greater number of people on the main page. You, because of your insistence in inserting your historical quotes and interpretations, clearly disqualified the article for consideration, even if I had not myself removed it. In fact, Pschemp had already added a statement on the nomination page to the effect that your insertion of POV material effectively disqualified it. In conclusion, I would strongly suggest you do the following:
(1) review the materials for newcomers which are referenced in the template at the top of this page, (2) perhaps create a userpage for yourself, indicating your particular areas of interest and expertise (red-link names are often viewed suspiciously, as single-purpose accounts like vandals and slanderers are the ones most likely to not create a userpage), and
(3) perhaps either join a group or project, maybe like some in the Project Directory, which will allow you to have an increased number of contacts and an increased number of more-experienced editors to be able to call upon when you have to. Alternately, there is a new program in which experienced editors will "adopt" a new user to help show them the ropes, as it were. I myself objected to the implicit derrogation of the newcomer by the word "adopt", but was overruled. Then, the editor who decides to help you out will be one you can turn to when you have questions or other concerns. I noted that you claim to have a good deal of knowledge about the Anatolia region. I am certain that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey would welcome your joining their group, and giving them any input you might be able to. Also, as an active member of both WikiProject Cats and WikiProject Dogs, I saw in one of the sources how the Turkish government has also placed the kaldang dog on the list of protected species. We do not yet have any content on this animal, and I am certain that the Dogs and Dog breeds projects would welcome anything you might be able to give us which could provide some information on this breed we currently have no content on. Also, I strongly suggest you review all the material cited above referring to our objections to POV and conclusions in content. In any event, I hope you realize that I think it likely that none of those who disagree with you are inherently trying to make money or trying to lead to the death of a national symbol, but are more trying to fight for what they perceive as being the principles of wikipedia and the best possible circumstances for all the animals we are discussing. Badbilltucker17:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Ani the cathedral.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ani the cathedral.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I'm not sure yet, and the answer might be none. Someone had uploaded a large-sized image of the same photo, without asking permission (which I would have declined anyway). But since the photo was important to the articles it was linked to, rather than just deleting it completely I uploaded a small version of the same photo instead, and left out adding any copyright note until I had the chance to look through the various options. Are there none that just licences an image just for use in Wikipedia - seems there isn't?Meowy02:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. You should probably contact us at permissions AT wikimedia DOT org if the images are not under the license that was indicated. Once we've received it, we can use the {{attribution}} template, or perhaps something else. Is that okay with you? Khoikhoi04:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ani
Regarding your comment on my edit. I'll give it to you straight. Your "meticulously referenced article" was actually an amateurish piece of work, cobbled together from anything you could trawl from the internet. As you yourself admitted, you know nothing at all about Ani, and had never heard of the place until a month ago. Because of that, you do not have the background knowledge to distinguise truth from fiction, accepted facts from contentuous statements, essential information from worthless padding, etc. That is just in relation to the Ani material you found online. There is much more about Ani contained in the many books, articles, monographs, etc that have been written over the past 150 years - none of which you have ever set your eyes upon. I will rewrite the remaining parts of your "meticulously referenced article" in the coming days. Meowy03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The only reason I even touched the article was to bring order to what was chaos. Take a look at what was there before my involvement. If there was misinformation in the article, it was misinformation that a reader could see where it came from. Major revisions to an article should be done in your sandbox and presented with references when complete. What you did, instead, is throw down hundreds of words and left a message on the talk page that you would provide references "a.s.a.p.". That is about as amateurish as it gets. Please note the following:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. (source: WP:V)
You didn't even manage to put a comment at the right place on my talk page. You are a novice here and your ignorance of how Wikipedia works is obvious. House of Scandal07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Why does a person think he can write a competent entry about a subject when he knows nothing about that subject? In your reply to an earlier question from me, you that you had heard about Ani for only two weeks before writing your contributions to the Wikipedia entry on Ani. I was aware of the lamentable state of the entry for Ani before you decided to add your material. Its earlier form certainly did not do Ani justice, but at the same time the entry was too small for it to contain any objectionable content. Your massively increased the size of the entry, but also massively increased the level of its inaccuracy. That is why I decided to rewrite it. Everything you placed in the entry you found only on the internet and, as I had explained earlier, you do not have the background knowledge abut Ani to distinguish truth from fiction, accepted facts from contentious statements, essential information from padding. Writing about Ani from a position of ignorance is rather like blundering into the middle of a mist-covered minefield without having a map. Your ignorance of Ani is proven by your continuing insistence on citations being provided for content that requires no citations. Citations are only needed for content that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Nothing I posted falls into those categories. Your contribution was full of unnecessary citations. I'm still at a loss to understand why you decided to contribute to an entry about Ani. It must have taken you a considerable time to do it (so I do understand you annoyance at someone coming and removing most of it). However, the basic problem with your contribution is that you don’t know the subject and because of that, you don’t know how amateurish and inaccurate your contribution was. There must plenty of entries on Wikipedia that need to be brought from "chaos into order" and that will be on subjects you do know about. Meowy16:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hovhannes-Smbat was his name, English Wikipedia doesn not mean you change the proper names to their English equivalent. Yohann Sebastian Bach's name does not change to John Sebastian Bach! Meowy21:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The inclusion of territories in the Europe (and Asia) table are based both on the UN geoscheme and, per the map, a common dividing line between the two continents -- in this, a portion of Azerbaijan is included, while Armenia (in the southern Caucasus) is not: this is already noted below. In the UN scheme, both are included in Western Asia. In Wp, the current presentation (long arrived at) is an attempt to equitably deal with these transcontinental countries. I apologise for perhaps not being clear about that, but be very careful about insinuations of vandalism, continuation of which will be ignored and willful edits without consensus reverted without comment. Corticopia21:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to believe the obvious. Your exclusion of Armenia, but inclusion of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey, clearly indicates a not-so hidden agenda. Meowy21:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
And of course, you have no agenda? Put a sock in it. I have already explained myself -- look at the map. You have not. If you do not believe that, I don't care. Compel for changes on the talk page beforehand -- good luck! -- or you will be reverted. A bientot. Corticopia
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violation of the three reverts rule on the Europe article. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring may result in longer blocks without further warning. KafzielTalk00:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit 1, I add Armenia to the table, into a new section named Caucasus and also moved Georgia and Azerbaijan into that new section.
Edit 2, I add a note clarifying that population figure of Turkey is for its territory in Europe.
Corticopia reverts both my entries.
I revert Corticopia's revert.
Corticopia reverts my revert.
I revert Corticopia's entry.
Corticopia reverts my revert.
I revert Corticopia’s revert.
That clearly makes only 3 reverts by me. So why did you block me? And why did you ignore the words of Heimstern Läufer who, when replying to Corticopia's allegation that I had broken the 3 reverts rule, said 'I have in fact perused the recent history and found nothing' (and who was then sworn at by Corticopia).
In the light of this obvious mistake on your part, I would like an apology from you. Meowy23:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Reverts don't have to be to your version; they can be to any version. That first edit was a revert: you re-added Armenia to the table. Then you did it again. And again. And again. That's four total, including the first one.
Also, be advised that I often block after only three reverts. 3RR was made to prevent edit warring, not to guarantee three free reverts every day. Just for future reference, to help you avoid more heartache. KafzielTalk00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, how nice it must be to be a wikipedia administrator, to make up the rules as you go and to always be right. So, with your reasoning, why did you not also block Corticopia? Especially after the insulting way she replied to the other administrator. Meowy00:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, it was a close one. And it would not be the first time I have blocked Corticopia, so don't kid yourself by thinking there was any favoritism there. KafzielTalk01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Hello, could you also see the talk page of the History of the name Azerbaijan article. Users Grandmaster, Parishan, and Atabek are trying to suppress a quote which they obviously dont like, and are continuously violating the compromise we all agreed on.Azerbaijani14:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Sarian khatchkar.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sarian khatchkar.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Başkale, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. — Gareth Hughes13:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Said by a person who has just used Talk:Başkale to comment on a contributor rather than content. Understandable, since the central maxim of a Wikipedia administrator is Do as I say, not as I do. BTW, amongst their many other sins, is the one where Wikipedia administrators state the blindingly obvious as if it were a great insight on their part. A personal insult was exacly what I intended my comment to be.
And there was me thinking that the whole point of being an Anglican was to have no opinion on anything, and make a good living out of it.Meowy01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Sorry - an error on my part - I didn't realise the reason had to be placed here. Here it is now. Gareth Hughes has blocked me for a specific comment I made on my user page. Blocks are used in order to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. That comment does not fall under any of the specified reasons for blocking someone. It was posted on my user talk page only: therefore how could it in any way be seen to "severely disrupt the project". How could the comment have damaged or disrupted Wikipedia in any way?
Decline reason:
My understanding is that this block is only regarding comments on Talk:Başkale and here. Calling someone arrogant and ignorant wasn't good, following it with this general insult didn't help. But your response to the warning was to re-affirm the insult and trash sysops generally [2][3], so when you were warned again, you attempted to use someone's Anglican affiliation to discredit him, which is the second example here. So while I can't see that there was harrassment going on (though the block log actually links to WP:CIVIL), there was certainly enough incivility and personal attacks to merit a block. Blocks may be used to protect users against persistent personal attacks, not only disruption, and it doesn't matter where on Wikipedia the personal attacks take place.— Chaser - T21:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Let me clarify: this user was blocked by me for repeated harassment and personal attacks of other users. This user was warned about the behaviour, and has then taken personal issue with me. This user was certainly blocked for harassment of a number of users, that only eventually included me. — Gareth Hughes16:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
And what are the specific names of these other users that I supposedly "harassed" and "attacked"? If Garazo objects so much to being criticised for being a member of a cult (be it Anglicanism or Wikipedia Administratorism) then perhaps he should develop a thicker skin. Meowy16:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one who started the thread and would greatly appreciate any input. Hopefully we can get this guy blocked for a long time. BH(T|C)01:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Will have a look at it, and the various edits. May consider contributing. Depends on how bad the Azeri propaganda has got. Meowy21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As you see it is pretty factually inaccurate. I did not know "caucasian albanians" existed in this time period. Did they not disappear by 10th century??? If you can help us with finiding additional resources and citations on this article, I would appreciate it. I was not the creator of this article, but I will work to try to correct it.Hetoum I00:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
yeh, well, that's the problem. The whole background to the Kish entry has a lot to do with things that have nothing directly connected to the actual church - but how do you tackle that without entering into the realms of original research? Meowy22:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, all I gotta say, is if you can find any additional resources to the article or can contribute lemme know. Here are the two versions of the disputed article:
Even the briefest of internet searches should dig up enough troubling background information about J. Bjornar Storfjell to make one suspicious about anything his name is connected to.
If you can gimme troubling info on him, I'd appreciate. His excavations alone give the impression he is rather unprofessional. What do you think stink about this cat meowy? :)
J. Bjornar Storfjell is "Professor of Archaeology and History of Antiquity" at a private educational establishment in America that is part of the Seventh-day Adventist sect. He is also the self-styled "Chief Executive" of the "Thor Heyerdahl Research Centre". This research centre seems to consist of little more than Storfjell himself, seems to work almost exclusively in Azerbaijan, and is not to be confused with the "Heyerdahl Institute" a legitimate academic organisation that is based in Norway. Storfjell had a close association with Thor Heyerdahl in the decade before his death, and his connection with the Kish church arises out of Heyerdahl's crackpot theory that the Norwegians are descended from people who migrated from what is now Azerbaijan, and that the Udi (the possible builders of the Kish church) are the ancestors of most Scandanavians. I'm not sure if there is a political subtext behind the theory - but I suspect that it may be popular amongst anti-EU elements in Norway who wish to use it to prove that Norwegians are not European in origin. There are also indications of connections with international oil companies such as BP and (when it was active) Yukos. Meowy 19:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, cheers. Interesting info you have brought to attention. I took a few days off and looks like it got worse since I left. Anyway, time to start throwing my 2 cents in on the talk page.Hetoum I12:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
My "regards" to you are that I will follow the well-founded advice regarding everything connected to Wikipedia, that is to "just say no". However, discovering the "Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy" gave me much amusement. So, regards for that. Meowy22:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
A thing that is also amusing is that for these "battling along ethnic and national lines" disputes at the end administrators seem to ignore all the arguments, valid and invalid, and simply resort to a "just-ban-them-all" solution. I see that heads were chopped-off by the dozen after the first Armenia-Azerbaijan Request for arbitration. Meowy23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was against ban'em all solution. If you check the talk of the previous arbcom, I suggested to place all the topic related articles on parole instead, i.e. no one is allowed to make more than 1 rv per day or even per week. That would have been a more effective way to prevent edit wars. But arbitrators opted for individual punishment. In any case, I wanted you to be aware of this and present evidence in your defense, if you wish to do so. Take care. Grandmaster10:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I have NOT violated the 3 reverts rule! RV1 3rd July 18:36, RV2 4th July 13:40, RV3 4th July 17.00, RV4 4th July 19:30. That makes only 3 in a 24 hour period. Moreover, I had said on the final edit that I would not be making any more edits to that page for 24 hours because of 3RR. So I can hardly be accused of acting in bad faith, or conciously exceeding the edit limit.
For the benefit of non-administrators who may by chance read this I also want to say that while, technically, this is an appeal, I have not placed the appeal code in the page with the belief that there is any possibility, however small, that he appeal will be accepted. I feel I need to add that in case someone thinks I'm unduly naive, or are overly idealisic about Wikipedia, or dont't know about ethnically-based vested-interest groups that exist within Wikipedia administrators.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
p.s.
p.s. I checked english version articles of JSTOR for history of caucasian albanians. Dowsett's deals with only one unrelated passage, and the other one is a work by Mkhitar Gosh. I suspect you confused the rticles. Hetoum I12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mention the Jstor article for any particular content, except that it showed a example for Grandmaster to see the name Kagankatvatsi spelt using the letter "L" with diagonal slash through it as a representation of the "gh" sound. Meowy15:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
p.p.s. Now that representatives of the other big ally of Azerbaijan have arrived and started editing and banning, either the page is going to have to be watched carefully for several months by many individuals, or just abandoned and left full of lies and propaganda. Meowy15:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
p.p.s.2 :) About your Center of Udi Culture question. Actually, the church probably originally was used by the Udi. After all, it is only a relatively short distance from the surviving Udi settlements, and 800 years ago I'm sure their population range and density was far greater. Architectually, it is very Georgian in style and so was probably built by Georgian masons. Of course it is amusing that Azeri articles go on about it being an Albanian church but seem unable to say that Kish was once an Udi village. I guess they want the concept of "Albania" to be vague and cover the maximum area possible - they even call medieval Jugha "Albanian"! So, although under wikipedia dogma you are right to want the centre of Udi Culture comment removed, it is probably an historically accurate statement. Since I'm sure we are both are fighting for accuracy and against propaganda, maybe you should let that bit go, especially since there will be plenty of real propaganda to fight against.
BTW, whether the Armenians in Kish during the 19th century were actually mostly Armenianised Udi, I don't think anyone can now know. Meowy15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Spelling - righto. Russian is clumsy as well as phonetically incorrect.
For Udi - the quote they came up with said after restoration their udi community blah blah blah .... Which is not true, it is a damn museum. I did not know museums were spiritual centers of culture.
For identity of "Armenians" in village and so forth, we can quote sources but not interpret them ourselves falling under original research rule. If anyone can come up with reliable published info proving identity of individuals in Kish, I do not see a reason to try to remove it.
Georgian features include the apse being semicircular on the outside, and the mouldings around the apse window. Meowy00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
church of Kish
According to Bosworth
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f5/v2f5a010.html
" The Monophysite Albanian church remained separate from the Armenian one till the end of the 7th century, when the two were united under stimulus from the Arabs"
So the church can not be Albanian since there was no Albanian church in the 19th century.
Also someone should mention that the Armenian inscriptions of the church were removed
There is adifference between ethnicity and religion. Kish can be both "Albanian" and "Armenian": used by ethnic Albanians (i.e. Udi) and part of the Armenian Church. Meowy00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm trying to understand what the dispute is that resulted in edit warring over the Church of Kish article. Can you explain to me in a brief summary what you think the issues are with that article? --Richard23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wrote the above before I read your message at Talk:Church of Kish. Feel free to respond over there.
If I'm not mistaken, much of what you just added [4] is word-for-word from Bryer's Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos, for example "...the ancient river Pyxites, along which runs the main trade route into eastern Anatolia and beyond." While it is a excellent source, I don't believe we can follow that text so closely without infringing. Tom HarrisonTalk20:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It may well be identical, but since I do not have a copy of the text it is just co-incidental! I got the info from the Anatolian Studies article, which does not use the same words as I have used (apart from the word Pyxites of course). Meowy20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have the book - what date does it give for the lintel inscription on the little chapel? The Anatolian Studies article gives it as 1622. Meowy21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I must have been remembering an excerpt from Anatolian studies. I returned Bryer to interlibrary loan. I remember the inscription was discussed. I'll get it again and check, but it may be a few weeks. Tom HarrisonTalk21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was browsing and checking some Armenian churchs, and saw your impressive work. Good job you obviously know your thing. Anatolmethanol15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Meowy, he was refering to Ehud Lasar. AdilBaguirov has used various socks impersonating various ethnicities, including Armenians, Kazaks, Uzbeks, Jews... But you should not have reverted that much anyway. The point was that, Marshall, you, Hetoum, Vartan all have made more than three edits reverting suspected socks of AdilBaguirov and while Grandmaster is using this, he and particularly Dacy69 have gotten away with the same thing. Mostly because we do not waste our time checking other contributors to then report them. - Fedayee22:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The above named arbitration case in which you were named as a party has closed. The remedy is as follows:
The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.
Hey, sorry I did not answer on the Kish page, just haven't felt healthy enough going back to that page yet. I am working on the Kaymakli article at the moment and trying to get it to a good article status. If you can add anything, please do so.Hetoum I01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
That comment is trolling, and the user that made it has now been blocked for incivility and personal attacks. You have been previously blocked for that comment. You would do well to not add it again.
— isaid00:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The edits are not vandalism. It clearly says at [[5]] that there is no fixed policy on removing comments from an article's talk page, but that it should be done only when it goes beyond the level of mere invective. Furthermore, removal of the comments will give a false impression that concensus has been reached regarding the entry. Meowy00:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Civility#Removing uncivil comments. You have made some excellent points on Talk:Lolcat. Please, please don't degrade conversation into contemptuously mocking fellow editors with whom you disagree. It's evident that you're not a troll, but if that's not trolling (or playing along with trolling), I'm not sure what it is. Regards, GracenotesT§01:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
warning
I was going to ask you to clarify your stance on Armenian nationalism, but judging from your talkpage, I assume you are just trolling. Please refrain from blanking articles, or you may be blocked from editing. --dab(𒁳)10:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want to have a reasoned conversation about the content of an entry, please don't make insulting comments on a users talk page. Instead, make constructive comments on the entry's talk page. Meowy00:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
stop removing content that is absolutely undisputed. You seem to have difficulties grasping the concept of "sub-articles". See WP:SS. Armenian irredentism isn't equivalent to Armenian nationalism, but it is obviously a subtopic. If you want to merge the articles, do a proper {{merge}} suggestion, don't just blank content. dab(𒁳)16:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The content is in dispute - I am disputing the content. I am not wanting the articles merged because they have the potentual to be completely different in scope, if all the inappropriate material was removed and truly relevant material were to be added. Meowy19:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Re:
The figure inside the tomb is Bel. Hayk's arrow is still in his chest. Ararat in the background with the ark is just romanticism. The flag is based on Khorenatsi's account and the general idea that the earliest Armenian banners depicted dragons. Probably a result of Scythian invasions.
I was wondering if some of the images that you have on your site can be used in Wikipedia, in particular Gagik I's statue, photos of Toros Toramanian and other potential public domain images? I'm not sure since I don't know what the sources are.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page. This notice is to inform you that based on your edits, you are hereby placed under the following restrictions:
Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
Supervised editing (formerly known as probation). You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.
Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.
Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.
Due to several aggressive and uncivil edits which you have chosen to make, including [6], you are hereby notified of the preceding editing restrictions. It is clear from this page that you have already been cautioned regarding civility and have chosen to ignore such cautions. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I have looked through the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 page, and can see no such words appearing anywhere on that page??? The page refers only to "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" - the edit you object to is in the talk page of a subject dealing with the Alied occupation of Constantinople. I have placed a question on your talk page requesting clarification. Meowy00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran..." (emphasis mine). Not only were you a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, making you well aware of the issues, Constantinople/Istanbul is in Turkey the last time I checked. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I see I may not have fully answered your question. The "and related ethnic conflicts" is clearly, by the wording of the ArbCom approved template, intended to include aggressively nationalist editing practices in the area of Turkey and conflicts therein. The main point here is, Wikipedia is not to be used as a battleground for nationalist struggles or any other. Your continuing references to "Turkish propaganda" and the like, despite being warned that this behavior is unacceptable, shows intent on your part to do just that and a need for editing restrictions. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you have completely failed to answer my question about where, in the RfA remedy decision, the word Turkey is mentioned. Secondly - you seem to lack any knowledge of the history of WW1. The Allied occupation of Constantinople was not (as you call it) an "ethnic conflict" and it is completely unrelated to Armenia or Azerbaijan. Meowy14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I'm not interested in nitpicking over what exactly "related" is. The problem here is that you have been making aggressive comments regarding the nationality of users and sources. Given your status as a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, you surely must be aware that such conduct is problematic and unacceptable. If you should stop this conduct now, you have nothing to worry about from the editing restrictions, as there will never be cause for a block or ban under them. If you intend to continue this conduct, on the other hand, it is necessary that it be stopped. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, Seraphimblake, I have asked you a simple question. Do me the courtesy of answering it! All I asked is where in that RfA decision is there mention of "Turkey"? Where did the text you posted here come from? You cannot go around imposing that Armenia-Azerbaijan RfA remedy on whatever subject you like - it has to be on a subject that is covered by that RfA remedy. As I stated, the Allied occupation of Constantinople was not an "ethnic conflict" and is completely unrelated to either Armenia or Azerbaijan so why are you applying that remedy as a result of a posting I made on that entry's talk page? Meowy21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
As Turkey is in the same geographic area, and is specifically mentioned in the template used to notify users of the restrictions (you'll see that template above, it's the one I used), I believe that there is enough relation to justify inclusion, especially given that you were a listed party to the case. The fact that you didn't like the answer I gave you, or disagree with it, doesn't mean I didn't answer you. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You have not answered me! I asked where you had got that template from? When and where was its form and content decided upon? As I said, there is no mention of Turkey in Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy, and the text you have used does not match that RfA remendy. Under the wording of the Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy, Turkey can only fall under that RfA remedy if the article is in some way related to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. Meowy16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for your query. To be really honest with you I am not certain now exactly where those gravestones were - it is so long ago (1973). As far as I can remember, they were taken from the mainland - not too far from the old Van citadel. It would not surprise me at all if they have been destroyed or removed since then. Not only was I witness to damage to Armenian remains during the short 6 weeks I spent in the region of Lake Van - there was organised and constant graverobbing. I even met some of the graverobbers and bought some small pieces of Urartian jewelry they had just unearthed and donated them to the Van Museum. Very soon after I was taken into custody by the Turkish army (a very frightening experience - believe me! I was threatened, handcuffed and spat on but, I must admit, not hit) and driven around in a jeep with demands that I point out the graverobbers. Fortunately, I could not distinguish them from anyone else I saw and, I pointed out to the Colonel when I was returned to an army base, that I had run across the gravediggers opening a grave just a few km from downtown Van in broad daylight and that, if I could find them so easily surely the Turkish army should be able to find them too if they really wanted to. He finally grudgingly agreed that I was right and I was released after all my papers had been checked and rechecked and phone calls made to Ankara. Some day, when I can spare the time, I will try to digitalise all my old photos of that region and post more of them on the Wikipedia. John Hill 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks John for this reply. What I might do is put online some of my photos of the graveyard I photographed this year, and you might be able to recognise if it is the same place. However, it is not close to Van castle, it is maybe about 15 minutes drive from it, on the road to Aghtamar and Tatvan. On the same site as the graveyard are the remains of what may be Urartian walls, and at the edge of the site is a dissused lime-kiln which may have still been operating in the 1970s. Actually, the current road (which is now right beside the lake waters) may be a modern (post-1970s) route and the original road ran higher up the lake side, just below the cemetery. The Van area has certainly changed a lot since 1973, so your photographs could be very interesting if they record things that are now gone. Meowy21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year and Merry Christmas!
Dear Meowy! Happy New Year and Merry Christmas! I wish you all the best! Thank you for your contributions, particularly to the Armenian Genocide-related articles, and for the civility during our discussions! Hope to continue them in 2008! Andranikpasha (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and remove that irrelevant "Jewish" section from the talk page. I'd also like to remove the "Deportations" section as you suggested but I don't propose doing so until we have stated our reasons why it infringes policy first. Therefore, if you don't mind, I have refactored the last comments by you and me and moved them to that section. Once we have given people time to read them the section can be removed. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh, no matter what we do, there are always going to be those who just finished reading Gunmen's hate site and head straight for that article to defend Turkeys honor. The one thing I hope the talkpage accomplishes is educating them, even if it's a little painful at first, they leave the place a little educated, knowing... I think its a good start to reverse the years of false history that they have been learning at their schools.
But then again thats not the purpose of that talkpage. If we tell them to stop it, we would be breaking AGF and BITE. The one thing we can do is to tell them to read the wp:talk and hope that they do. VartanM (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Shusha Pogrom
Meowy, thank you for your participation and work on Shusha pogrom article! If you need any additional sources (especially the Russian ones) pls contact me! And also one thing: according to my sad experiance:) [7], your edit can by classified as a "partial revert" while an explanation is required, so as you're under AA2 parole, pls explain it at the article's talk. Thank you again and hope for a contact! Andranikpasha (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me. It doesn't surprise me that Wikipedia's serial complainant is again pursuing his favourite pastime. Meowy23:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Andranikpasha, it is not worth appealing the ban. But I would be grateful if you would pose the following questions to Moreschi. Has he looked at the edit which I removed, and if so does he think that the removed edit was an acceptable edit given that most of it repeated verbatim the content of the following-on paragraph? Also, does removing vandalism, even if it is inadvertant vandalism, count as a revert? My understanding was that it did not. Meowy19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to you for NPOVing the article! Ill ask to Moreschi. And my understanding is the same. So thanks for your work its surely justified and needed!! Andranikpasha (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You could try this, Andranikpasha. Wikipedia's definition of vandalism has a category called unintentional vandalism; there is even a tag for it. Unintentional vandalism would never result in stuff like "WE ALL HATE KURDS" or "LOL PENIS", therefore Moreschi is wrong to say that all vandalism must be stuff like that. Unintentional vandalism should be removed just like intentional vandalism, the only difference being that intentional vandalism can also bring sanctions against whoever did it. The edits made by Atabek and Parisham in each case resulted in the following text being on the article. Are admins really saying it should have stayed like this, and that the duplicated material should not have been removed? This is not a dispute over content!
These events took place from March 22, 1920 to March 26, 1920, and resulted according to various estimates in 500 to 30,000 Armenian and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths, and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians". Estimates of casualty figures are uncertain and varied: 500 to 30,000 Armenian and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths, and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians".
Thank you. I agree with your analysis, and I do see how my use of the word "vandalism" may have inflamed the situation - I will try to use less provocative language in the future. I would like to clarify one point: I did not think that Parishan was deliberately vandalising the article. Parishan's edit was, as you said, sloppy editing. When I removed it, I believed that sloppy editing came under the category of "inadvertant vandalism" which is why I had used the word vandalism and had meant it to describe the result of the edit, not the aim of the edit. Meowy16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your answer. Unfortunately after much further review and discussion, I find I was partly mistaken in my original findings. Not only did Parishan's edit contain a duplication, it also contained a restoration of the disputed "revolt" comment and sources. As such, your reversion was not only a repair of the duplication but also a content revert, and you share some of the same responsibility as Atabek and Grandmaster for reverting without really reading what you were doing. As such, I feel I have no choice but to reblock you for 15 hours, making a total of 24 hours, which is appropriate for a 1RR violation first offense. I have not applied the topic ban, because I think you made a good effort in repairing the copyvio damage, and you have not been part of the long running dispute over this material (until now). Obviously further revert violations can lead to escalating blocks. Good luck. Thatcher02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have some points I'd like to raise. I can't read Atabek's mind - so why should I be expected to return the edit to what he had intended to do rather than what he had actually done (especially since his edit entirely removed text that I had previously worked upon). Secondly, what do you mean when you wrote "this was Meowy's first incident with this particular dispute (Waal)". I have not been disputing anything regarding De Waal. Thanks to their inexplicable refusal to actually read the edit, Grandmaster and Atabek claimed that I removed the De Waal reference - but as I said in my reply to him, it is clearly still there. All I removed was the duplicated reference! Thirdly, where did the "much further review and discussion" continue after the AE section was archived? Has material been blanked from the AE project or talk pages? Meowy20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The way I read it, it is banned from the AE discussion page, according to the actual words used by Moreschi, quote, "you're all banned from this page for 4 days". Your comment suggests that discussion had indeed been going on in that talk page, or somewhere else, and has been blanked. True? Meowy18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Azeris
There are way too many articles that this subject has been discussed. The fact that Azeris of the Azerbaijan republic are former Tatars and the fact that the newly created republic was named as such, because the Russians eyed Iran's Azerbaijan province are well known. As a matter of fact, I was placed under restriction for saying that if the article about Azeris in Armenia was to include the information about Turkic people in Armenia the name of the article should be changed. Some of the discussions can be found in the following articles.
Yuu removed my edit. And I find objectionable your refusal to discuss your POV in the talk page of the actual article. Meowy13:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If you put that it bypassed the warning in your first removal of the /b/ link in the edit summary, I wouldn't have reverted it in the first place. I haven't reverted it again as you have a legitimate reason.--Seriousspender (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are reverting still, because your last two reverts didn't remove or add the /b/ link. Please explain the problem.--Seriousspender (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
But you marked it as a "rv" - so I thought it was a revert of my edit! I see now that it was not and you were adding new material so I have returned it to the previous version. But why did you call it a revert when it wasn't? Meowy13:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. When you wrote "rv mistake" in the edit summary, you meant "that previous revert by meowy was a mistake". I took it just to mean "rv", (which is what rv usually means), that it was a rv to reinsert the link I had removed, and that you hadn't added any new content. Sorry! Meowy14:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Bunyadov and medals
My grandfather and two of his brothers have received those mentioned medals. Does this mean I can create articles about them? VartanM (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, why not! But seriously, what should be done about such unnotable additions? If Bunyadov has Scout badges or a swimming certificate, I'm sure certain editors would want them mentioned too! Meowy13:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I was speaking as a human to another human, united against mass murder of fellow humans (I though thats what you believed in after seeing your comments in the Assyrian genocice talk page.) Chaldean (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement block
You are hereby blocked for 24 hours for failing to followup your revert at 2008 Mardakert skirmishes with a talk page explanation. I also note that the flag argument strikes me as pretty weak (i.e. it's rather self-evident the reference is to the entity bearing the flag). Thanks in advance. El_C07:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Grandmaster when making this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_Mardakert_skirmishes&diff=204655156&oldid=203359115 did not give a talk page explanation of his edit. His edit justification, given in the edit summary, was that he was removing an edit by an editor who had been subsequently banned. However, it isn't justifiable to simply revert an edit because that edit was made by a banned user. The actual quality of the material to be added or removed should always be examined. Grandmaster failed to do this, either in his edit summary, or in a talk page explanation. In my edit I removed the word "unrecognised" which had been added by Grandmaster, giving as an explanation that "the flag itself is recognised as being the flag of the NK republic, regardless of the status of the republic", I felt that this was as full an explanation as was necessary given the brevity of the edit (only removing a single word) and that the reason for Grandmaster's edit was wrongfooted. El_C comment that the reason was "pretty weak" is a bizarre thing to say, and his blocking of me seems unjustified and vindictive. Did El_C look at where the removed word was found? If he would have, then he would have seen that the word "unrecognised" does not occur in the beligerents section of the conflict infobox for ANY other wikipedia entry concerning Naogrno Karabagh - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ring or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shusha for examples. Nor (as far as I can see) does the word "unrecognised" or any other similar qualifier appear in the conflict infobox on any wikipedia entry (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gagra or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pawan .) In other words, Grandmaster's edit was unjustified, re-inserting a word that should never have been placed in that location and mis-using the function of the conflict infobox. My edit was done for legitimate reasons, and was simply removing that word. For me to be blocked for such a pedantic and trivial a reason as placing my edit explanation in the edit summary rather than the talk page is unjustified.
Decline reason:
The block is not unjustified, because in not explaining your revert on the talk page you violated the explicit editing restrictions imposed by Seraphimblade above. The rest of your unblock request has no bearing on the matter of the validity of your block. — Sandstein (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Further to the decision by Sandstein - sorry, I didn't make my reasoning clear enough. Grandmaster, by adding the word "unrecognised" into the conflict infobox, was adding something that was completely contrary to the accepted useage of conflict infoboxes within Wikipedia articles. I can't believe that Grandmaster was unaware of what he was adding and that he was unaware that no other conflict infoboxes on any other conflict had such a qualifying word, so it is likely that he was planning to make similar changes to all of the articles dealing with conflicts relating to the Nagorno Karabagh war. Such edits, including the edit I reverted, would be perverting the proper function of a conflict infobox and thus compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. So my appeal is, basically, that I do not believe that reverting such an edit falls under the remit of the editing restriction under which I have now been blocked.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Comment Reverting clear vandalism does not usually fall under editing restrictions. I consider Grandmaster's edit to be a malicious attempt at altering the universally accepted usage of conflict infoboxes. By declining my unblock request, the above administrators may have given a green light for others to continue with this process of perverting the proper function of a conflict infobox. A request for clarification (or similar) is probably now needed in order to define what is acceptable content for conflict infoboxes. Meowy23:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Unjust block
Meowy you should know by now that they don't care what you say in the talkpage, as long as you say something. It can be something completely irrelevant to the article... Like accusing another member of violating a rule that you yourself just broke. Since you were unjustly blocked, here is an interesting read from the kangaroo court's noticeboard. [9]Notice how 3 admin follow each other like a sheep. So next time go ahead and tell the world something interesting, something out of the blue. After all, its the deleteionists job worry about the waste of space. --VartanM (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, the main reason I did not explain my edit in more detail in the talk page was because I felt it would be needlessly cluttering up the talk page, but, like you say, it seems admins are not interested in such considerations. I think however I will take the issue of infobox misusage to a RfC. Meowy13:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Interested?
Hey there, I was wondering if you would be interested in editing certain parts of the new article I created about the Bagratuni Kingdom of Armenia. I started a culture section at the end but it's rather short and lacking so perhaps you add your input on history, Armenian architecture, the churches, and the like. Cheers, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Armeno-Kurdish relations in the Ottoman Empire
In the Rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire article it states that "Until the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-1829 there had been little hostile feeling between the Kurds and the Armenians." I severely doubt this. But were the Kurds involved in the genocide promised a state or subscribe to any sort of Kurdish nationalism, or did they view themselves as Ottomans? Hakob (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've never read of any promises or implied political rewards being made - but I haven't gone out of my way to find out so I might be wrong. I think the Kurds were "just" (in their eyes) doing what they had always done, only now on a far greater scale. I think they viewed themselves firstly as Kurds (of such and such a tribe), and secondly as Muslims. I don't think they had much sense of being Ottomans - to them the government in distant Constantinople was just something that would attempt to tax them and curtail their lifestyle. Most of the early Kurdish nationalism was based on resisting Constantinople's attempts at managing its Kurdish population. I remember reading a while ago some inteesting things about Kurdish political thought in this period in a magazine called "Ararat" that was published in the 1910s in London. There was an interview with a European-educated Kurdish tribal leader who was saying that his people would without hesitation massacre all the Armenians in their area if the Ottoman government gave Armenians the same political and legal status as Kurds had. Meowy21:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not much seems to have changed, except that Constantinople is now Ankara (or Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran). The Kurdish-Armenian relations article needs some serious work. It says that treatment of Kurds from the Armenian government is bad (and refers to the Yazidis), but doesn't mention that the Yazidis distance themselves from mainstream Kurds for religious and historical reasons. The "Armenian government" is blamed for deporting the Kurds in 1937 (wasn't it still a Soviet republic?), but if the situation for them was so dire, why were they allowed to have their own newspaper (Riya Taza), the oldest Kurdish newspaper in the world? Armenians in Kurdistan are mentioned, but I'm not so sure Armenians in a city like Al Qamishli view themselves as part of a Kurdish state, even if they majority of people around them are Kurds. Hakob (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The anon sockpuppet
If you look through the recent history of that page, it should be apparent who the anon sock is, and they have already been penalized for evading their block. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I did, but I had thought it was maybe someone else. Given who that someone else was, I'm relieved I was wrong. Meowy22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Lynch map extract.jpg
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Lynch map extract.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
The map was uploaded at the request of another editor, who wanted to check its contents. Since that was the sole reason I uploaded it I will let it be deleted, though it is public domain if anyone wants to add the copyright info to keep it. Meowy02:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, don't be alarmed but since I mentioned your user name at WP:ANI, you might be interested in this and this. Apologies if I've mentioned your name and you didn't want to be mentioned, I will remove it if you want it removed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk)
Blue Mosque of Yerevan
The builders of the mosque and its worshipers wrote in the Perso-Arabic script and spoke in the Azeri dialect of Turkish. Why should the [Turkey] Turkish, with its Kemalist spelling, take precedence over the Azeri? In contemporaneous sources, it would be mentioned as Gyoy or Gyok Jami, as the Kemalist reforms took place several years later. Hakob (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have never seen that Azeri name in any printed source (except modern Azeri ones), which is why I think the Turkish name should take precedence. I doubt that the mosque's worshipers or builders wrote in "Azeri" - it would have been seen as a language of peasants. Anyway, I just spelt it as I would spell it. It is arguable that Turkish words should be represented using the modern Turkish alphabet (after all, we don't represent 17th century English names using the 17th century English way of writing which didn't distinguish between an "f" and an "s"). But it's equally arguable that for often used words (like Jami or Pasha) they shouldn't. So if you feel it should be "Gyok Jami" then go ahead and change it, it's not a big issue for me. Meowy01:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Garni Inscritpion
Unfortunately the main reference to the inscription can be found in Vestnik, 3 [25], 1948, 169-181. I don't speak Russian and have no access to such material. Vestnik is a Russian archaeological review and I couldn't possibly trace it here in Athens. If you can ask anybody about it, it would be great! The Garni temple article will probably need some more editing in view of the article's information (see my talk page) but unless I make sure there is not any recent bibliography I won't try my hand on it. Be that as it may I have to thank you once more for your interest--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I will try to find the magazine and yes I am interested in the inscription. I am going away for the weekend so I will probably have a better look at your points on Monday. All the best!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I will have some more compact information on the Garni temple in the following days (I plan to visit one of the main libraries here in Athens). If you happen to log in in the meantime you can also upload the inscription you were talking about the other day. I would be happy to look it up as well--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not quite as big an inscription as I remembered it to be [[10]] - only two lines composed of maybe only two words. I checked in a book, and it is supposed to be the name of the Sassanid king Peroz, (459-484), which means that it must have come from an earlier building - but the stone doesn't look reused to me. Meowy01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, what you read is probably correct because the inscription makes no sense in Greek. It says:
ΠΕΡΟΖΙ (PEROZI)
[..]ΕΟΝΤΑΚ (..EONTAK)
I can't tell you whether this comes from a reused block but the hole in the lower right corner shows that somebody tried at some later date to extract the iron clamps and the lead from the massonry . On the other hand, the position of the inscription on the lower line of the block might be an indication of a second use. Thanks again!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hemshin
It is a frustrating article to work on because it has been reverted or significantly altered every time I have made an edit. It seems to be the only article Omer is working on - I wonder why. Hakob (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Erzurum
I'll change the protection level to semi it in a few days, but there appears to be some discussion going on by several established users on the talk page. Basically, I need to be convinced that the edit war will stop if I change the protection level. Khoikhoi20:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Van Resistance - OttomanReference or Artaxiad
Meowwwy,
What do you like better his use of fine racist turkish propoganda sources like: Çelik, Hüseyin (2001). "The 1915 Armenian", The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period. Ankara: Turkish Historical Society, 374.
or his middle school grammar and mechanics - personally I like both. If you survey this moron to checkuser he will turn up to be the banned user artaxiad , who also gloated over Nazi Armenian connection 812 battalion article like the worst anti armenian could not have. Also a chance he is user ottomanreference - see his liberal use of turkish source and reinsertion of words including rebellion russian troops, battle of van and kurdish irregulars like ottomanreference. A checkuser and third [pary analysis should solve your problems especially since ottomanreference seems to have abandoned his account.
Inaccuracies in the animated gif map of Ottoman Empire
Is there a place i can find accurate maps of the Ottoman Empire from the 19th century on? i would like to create the animated gif map with the correct information Rafaelherrejon (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A 19th century atlas perhaps. :)
All maps from the 19th century are accurate. It is propagandistic maps from the 20th and 21st century that purport to show previous boundaries that will be the inaccurate maps. Personally, I would just break apart the gif file to remove all the decline part, and leave it as the expansion part. Meowy02:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Sources on the Hamshens
Hey Meowy, I recently was reading your arguments on the Hamshen article and thought perhaps that you might be interested in two articles in the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia about them: the Hamshen dialect and the Hamshen people (SAE, vol. 6, 1980). They confirm that the Hamshenis are Armenians and that the language they speak is essentially a dialect of Armenian. I can translate to you the article about the Hamshen people relatively quickly, although the one in regards to their dialect would take a little bit more time.
In either case, both articles would strongly bolster the strength of your arguments considering that they come from a very reputable and authoritative source. Drop me a line in case you're interested.
Hello, can you please check the Ani#Modern times section in the Ani article. There are four inline citations that do not specify the pages of the references provided. As a result I added a verification tag next to them. If i'm not wrong you added the citations, if so can you please add the page numbers. Thanks.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!01:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember if I did add those citations - though I probably did. However I won't have access to any of the books until the middle of September, so no page numbers until then unless someone else can get hold of those books. Meowy17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Armenian Genocide article - Small tidyup in regards to quote/source anachronism
Hi I raised a topic on the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article in regards to a quote in the article framed as contemporary (~1915) using the term "fifth column", which was not coined until 1936, a historical anachronism. I've made some suggestions on the talk page about resolving the problem and seeing that you have taken a strong interest in the article in the past could you rewrite that section so that it is chronologically consistent. Thanks 58.173.52.11 (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. --Drat (Talk) 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mastara_greek_inscription.jpg){kind=link}
I'm Sardur from wiki fr. I rearranged the Ani page on Commons (I hope I didn't make any mistake). There's still one pic from the category that I can't identify : Image:Ruins in Ani 1.JPG. Do you know what it is ? Btw, congrats for the website 
