User talk:73.173.64.115

Talk pages

Hi Davidian, I would like to apologize for the last block. Anyway, you still get a reply because you sign with Davidian, which was sort or a corporate signature of an IP that merits some credit from my part.

I'd like to point out that to start huge discussions over terms, like ruled the empire as a one-party state or being the "government of the empire" might not yield success as later in the lead it is described fairly extensively how it seized power over the Empire. Then again, you were addressing the wrong talk page, the one not responsible for the CUP. I recommend to add some sourced phrases that complement the article.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the wrong talk page. And give it a more conciliate tone. Bring the sources and add it to the article. Do not make unsourced additions. And an IPs edits, specially of a disruptive one, are likely to be scrutinized.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bring the sources and add it to the article?? Paradise Chronicle (talk), do you have the slightest idea how many tons of sources I've brought to this article to make sourced additions? None was implemented, and, I'm sorry to have to say this, in sheer violation of your own Wikipedia:NPOV. Will you be around when I'll be making an addition to Committee of Union and Progress? Well, then you'll witness the attitude of your fellow editors.73.173.64.115 (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

I have watchlisted the article and will be around. Good luck.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I haven't intentionally evaded a block. Is this a mistake?73.173.64.115 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

It was a mistake. I apologize. You are unblocked. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Armenian genocide for general discussion of this or other topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See the talk page guidelines for more information. Thank you. — Czello ^(music) 23:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the general discussion was started by an unidentified IP, presumably from Turkey, and not by me. I hope you saw that several times I invited his/her attention to the fact that this discussion is about improving the article, particularly, the date of the genocide mentioned in the infobox. So, please redirect your warning to the one who started the general discussion irrelevant to the topic. Thank you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

I've warned them also and collapsed the discussion. — Czello ^(music) 23:34, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. But please avoid juxtaposition of guilt.73.173.64.115 (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Reply

This and tons of similar stories are mentioned in witness accounts of the genocide survivors, as well as in the testimonies of the U.S. Vice-Consul in Aleppo Jesse B. Jackson. But continue to conjure up Turkish make-believe stories. It looks like they provide comfort to the denialists of the crime. 73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian

In 1915, the US sought a casus belli to enter the war and shift the public opinion in favor of the Allied Powers. For this purpose, American diplomats in Turkey sent telegrams containing exaggerated or fabricated stories regarding the Armenians. It was an organized propaganda campaign directed by the US government. Historian Heath Lowry revealed this with documents in the US archives. He published his research in the book The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story[1]

81.214.107.89 (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, it looks like Ara Sarafian's and Hans-Lukas Kieser's visiting ATASE was an example of traditional Turkish lies, huh? For more detail and Halaçoğlu's untruthfulness, go read the text under Research sub-heading of Wikipedia's article Ara Sarafian.73.173.64.115 (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

That info is sourced to Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand's column, of which a copy is available here.[2] Birand had accepted Sarafyan's claims that the archives were not opened at first. But in a later column, Birand said Halaçoğlu shared with himself his email exchange with Sarafyan, which showed that the meeting was actually cancelled due to pressure from the Armenian diaspora. Birand apologized to Halaçoğlu for his mistake. You can check here for the source.[3] 81.214.107.89 (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Birand writes that “according to Halaçoğlu, the main reason for Ara Sarafyan’s refusal to meet is the Armenian Diaspora’s reaction to such a study”. The key phrase here, as I understand it, is “according to Halaçoğlu”. Having learnt from Sarafian’s statement how untruthful Halaçoğlu was, it wouldn't surprise me if the latter might as well made the whole thing up. Why would the Armenian Diaspora (all of it? really?) be against a joint study of the massacres in Harput and the number of Armenian deaths it had produced? Doesn’t make any sense at all.73.173.64.115 (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Because the Armenian perspective is already recognized in most of the world. I think the diaspora thought that Sarafyan conducting research together with Halaçoğlu could legitimize the Turkish perspective to the Western public. They naturally did not want this. In contrast, Turkey is pretty much isolated in its historical view. Had a Turkish scholar researched the archives together with an Armenian scholar, it would be more advantageous to Turkey than it would be to Armenia. Think about it: most Europeans view the Turkish claims as 'denialist'. The public would question why an Armenian would work together with someone whom most Armenians and Europeans call denialist. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such a thing as “Armenian perspective” that’s been recognized in most of the world. The prevailing majority of genocide scholars, historians, international lawyers, etc., accepting the Turkish premeditation in wiping out the Armenians from their historical habitat, are non-Armenians. And there is no distinction between the Diaspora Armenians and Armenians living in the Republic when it comes to the genocide issue: almost every other Armenian worldwide has lost a relative to the Turkish crime. If the Diaspora (a monolithic entity? all of it, really?) were against the joint study, Sarafian wouldn’t even get to accept Halaçoğlu’s suggestion in the first place. After all, he is part of the Gomidas Institute, not an independent academic. What legitimization of the “Turkish perspective” to the Western public are you talking about? For the mass destruction of the Armenians of Harput, the main organizer, mass murderer Bahaeddin Şakir, was sentenced to death in absentia at the Ottoman courts martial conducted in 1919. What danger of a “Turkish perspective” could there be if the main perpetrator was found guilty by Turkish own courts? And one of the reasons Turkey is isolated in her historical view is because you Turks have no balls to accept guilt and apologize. With a few exceptions (Akçam, Göçek, Pamuk, Üngör et al), you can only deny.73.173.64.115 (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

There are a lot of non-Turkish historians accepting the Turkish perspective, for example Jewish academicians like Bernard Lewis. This is a highly disputed subject but instead of engaging in talks, Armenians are more interested in labeling different opinions 'denialist'.

1919 Court martial was conducted by the Ottoman government to appease the Allied states, who were in turn were pressured by the Armenian diaspora to purse this issue. The Ottoman government tried to put all the blame on the Unionist to shift the resposbility for the war. But the defendants were not offered a fair judicial process. Refik Halit Karay, who opposed the CUP, stated the execution of Falih Rıfkı Atay was decided before his trial. Orhan Pamuk is not a historian. Göçek is not a historian. She is a sociologist and cannot read Ottoman Turkish. Akçam was member of a far-left militant organization called DEV-GENÇ and had been convicted for communist and separatist propaganda by a court. His work is found to contain mistakes and translation errors of Ottoman documents.[4] Üngör, on the other hand, mentions in his works that Armenians massacred thousands of Turks. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, only a handful non-Turkish historians accept the Turkish view of history on the issue of Armenian Genocide. Lewis is one of those few. Armenian Genocide is not “a highly disputed subject” but an established fact that gains more recognition in both academic and political circles throughout the world. What “talks” can there be if the perpetrator nation denies guilt? What, in the course of one or two years a whole population of some 2.2 million Armenians have just evaporated? All you do in these pages is finding silly justifications for this or that or undermining facts that have been established by specialists in the field. Now you undermine the decisions of the 1919 courts martial. What “Armenian diaspora” back in 1919? Are you hallucinating? Then you go on to undermine your most honest intellectuals, whether they are historians or not, communists or not—doesn’t matter, those who raised their voice for the historical truth, for the honor of your nation. You know, I happened to be familiar with Üngör’s works, he’s one of those who admits genocide had happened, his passages of Armenians killing the Turks refer to the last year of the war and the post-war period. These are largely accepted as revenge killings or retaliation killings. You conveniently disregard the reason-consequence link because stating the primary reason for the Armenian post-genocide behavior towards the Turks doesn’t fit your, yes, denialist narrative. What would you expect the remnants of mass exterminated Armenians to do? Why don’t you speak about Turkish barbarism in 1915 against Armenian men, women, children, the infirm, and even the unborn who were cut from their mothers’ wombs as the primary reason? Were all of these innocent people revolutionaries? Stop playing dumb please. Or, even better, end this useless discussion.73.173.64.115 (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Okay. I will cite you a section from one of Üngör's book. Even though Üngör is closer to the Armenian perspective, he contradicts you on some points:

...the Armenian paramilitary units would not take Kurdish and Turkish prisoners. This was an ethnic war of annihilation. The young writer Viktor Borisovich Shklovskii (1893-1984) wrote that Armenian units went into battle ‘already hating the Kurds’ and that this ‘deprived the peaceful Kurds, and even their children, of the protection afforded by the laws of war’. Turkish and Kurdish villages were pillaged, emptied, and burnt to the ground. Shklovskii added: ‘[During the war] I have seen Galicia, and I have seen Poland—but that was all paradise compared to Kurdistan.’ He gave the example of a massacre in a Kurdish village, where Kurdish tribesmen had killed three soldiers who were foraging for booty. The punitive detachment that was dispatched retaliated mercilessly by slaughtering 200 Kurds, ‘without regard to age or gender.
— Uğur Ümit Üngör, War in Peace, p. 177

Of course, there were incidents of assaults against Armenian civilians too. But there were no orders for this by the Turkish government. In fact during the war, the government punished around 1500 Turkish soldiers for the bad treatment of Armenians. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How well do you know the English language and its idioms? Do you know what “turn cat in the pan” means? Simply put, it means “lay one’s sin at another person’s threshold”. No one denies that Turks were also killed in the last year and after the war, even though in no way were those killings wholesale and widespread as the horrible genocidal mass killings of the Armenians in 1915. Üngör refers to those killings during the last stage of the war. He doesn't contradict me. Again, are you capable of understanding the reason-consequence link? Isolated killings by Armenian units in 1917-1918 were the consequence. Can you ask yourself what the reason was? A hint: roll back to 1915. How would you expect the remnants of mass murdered Armenians to behave after the wholesale destruction of their communities two years earlier? You call the almost total annihilation of Ottoman Armenian populations and thousands-year presence on their native lands “incidents (?!) of assaults against Armenian civilians”. Jesus Christ… And don’t you give me this denialist crap about “no orders for this by the Turkish government”. Do you mean to say that army commanders, the gendarmerie, the soldiers, the valis, the kaymakams, the reses et al, acted on their own initiative nationwide and simultaneously in almost all areas populated by the Armenians? STOP right there. If you write again, you may expect me to be very rude.73.173.64.115 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Yes. There was an order to relocate the Armenian by the Ottoman government. It is known as tehcir law. But the government did not instruct the subordinates to harm Armenians. There were officials and groups who acted against the government orders. Such officials were tried in military courts.

On page 176, Üngör describes massacres by the Russian, Armenian and Cossack forces:

Armenian refugees' stories of mass murder had infected the Russian imagination with essentialist images of the Kurds and Turks supposed innate barbarism. The backlash against local Muslim civilians was ferocious. The Russian army launched punitive expeditions (karatelnaya ekspeditsiya) against hostile elements in the occupied zone. Armenian paramilitary units and Cossack regiments were particularly receptive to the execution of these assignments ... These operations took the lives of approximately 45,000 civilians in the valley of the Chorukh river in the South-West Caucasus.

The slaughter of 45,000 unarmed people cannot be described as a localized incident. 81.214.107.89 (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t I say you may expect me to be rude? Okay, you asked for it. Your Ottoman Turkish government was a government of criminals, a government of savages and barbarians who set out to execute the premeditated crime against humanity to wipe out all non-Turkish nationalities in order to create an ethno-nationalist Turkish state. All those government officials at central and local levels, military men, the gendarmes, and ordinary Turks who mass murdered, gangraped, hanged, mutilated, burnt and buried Armenians alive en masse, are petty cowards and savages. The denialist segment of your nation is also a segment of petty cowards. And you are one of them. Turks will never become Germans who found courage to apologize to the Jews. Satisfied? Now go get a bag of dicks and a bottle of ketchup.73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A much less snarky approach to the talkpage would be appreciated. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your fellow editor (t · c) buidhe keeps violating Wikipedia's fundamental principle of engaging in a collaborative effort to improve articles. As I hope you can see in the talkpage, she keeps refusing to implement the contributors' RS-based edits. And you here are talking about some "snarky approach" of mine? Ugh... Why aren't you voicing your concern in the talkpage against (t · c) buidhe's constant violations of Wikipedia's policies? Why aren't you rallying your fellow editors against this uncooperative, misdemeaning, and totally amateurish editor?73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

As an IP, you are not allowed to raise allegations against other editors or otherwise participate in project-governance discussions related to Armenia and Azerbaijan topics, broadly construed, per WP:GS/AA. Further edits in defiance of this community-imposed restriction will be met with escalating blocks. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will have you apologize to me here for your accusation that I participate in "project-governance discussions related to Armenia and Azerbaijan topics". If you don't present evidence, right now, that I'd ever touched on Armenia and Azerbaijan topic, I will declare publicly, here and on Armenia genocide talkpage, that you, Rosguill, are a petty liar. How about that?73.173.64.115 (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

I NEVER edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Stop spewing rubbish. And please apologize.73.173.64.115 (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Any repetition of the nastiness on display on this talkpage, or anywhere else, will result in a very long block. Acroterion (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here 73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Attacks on the blocking administrator or other editors in unblock requests are not considered. If you return to the same conduct after this block has expired, you can expect a much longer block. Talkpages are not exempt from sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was falsely accused of editing a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. I most responsibly declare here that I have NEVER edited any such page. Or editors must present the proof that I ever did. If they fail to provide the proof, this will mean that a false accusation has been made for which an apology must be offered and my IP address unblocked, immediately.73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Decline reason:

Special:Contributions/73.173.64.115 clearly shows a significant number of edits to Talk:Armenian genocide. Yamla (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User Rosguill accused me of editing a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. I’ve NEVER edited any such page. I requested an apology from Rosguill for groundless accusation, requested proof that I had ever participated in "project-governance discussions related to Armenia and Azerbaijan topics", and told him or her that if proof is not presented, I will declare that Rosguill is a petty liar. In response, Rosguill blocked me from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making “personal attacks towards other editors”. Where exactly in my post was personal attack and why editors’ illegal accusation of editing topics designated as contentious is not considered personal attacks towards contributors? I demand an apology for a false accusation that I participated in a discussion related to Armenia and Azerbaijan topics, which I never did, and I demand that my IP address be unblocked immediately. Otherwise, I will return to this page in 2 weeks and will request an administrative action against Rosguill for a personal attack towards a contributor by means of a false accusation and a block.73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Repeating your demands is not a good strategy, nor is pretending that Talk:Armenian genocide is not related to Armenia. Again, talkpages are not free-insult zones. Acroterion (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not repeating "demands", dearest Sir. I'm using my right, given to me by Wikipedia's regulations, to make an unblock request by presenting reasons. And please stop pretending that you're not aware that I've never attempted to edit a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. I only suggest RS-based improvements in the talkpage, and you know that, don't you? And, no, Armenian genocide is not, by definition, a "conflict" related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, in case you didn't know. I'm waiting for a proof that I ever tried to edit a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts or, if proof is not provided, an apology for a false accusation.73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Request denied, despite the bold print and the actual lack of a formal unblock request. You were blocked for, I quote, "Personal attacks or harassment, WP:NOTHERE vis-a-vis Armenian Genocide topics". I just looked at the history of Talk:Armenian genocide, and it seems to me that User:Rosguill made the right decision. In the meantime, I think you have taken up enough time and bandwidth and I will revoke your access to this talk page. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More personalization

Davidian, this is so exhausting. Please stop personalizing content disputes. You are welcome to your view, and welcome to criticize others'. You don't have to say that buidhe is "pretending" not to know something or that I want "readers to be duped into a hogwash". Neither of us is operating in bad faith, and assertions that we are just repeat the behavior that led to past blocks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not operating in bad faith? Prove it. Why isn't a single RS-based edit introduced to the text over the course of a very long period of time? I suggested two RSs that contest, or provide a conflicting information rather, Suny 2015. I want to see all views (Suny's too) included in the sentence on Armenians' place of habitat in Background, as required by WP:CONFLICTING. PROVE IT that you're not operating in bad faith.73.173.64.115 (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

It seems like you're defining good faith to be agreement with you. I'm sorry to see that. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm defining good faith to be agreement with Wikipedia's own policies and regulations. Not violation of them. Have a good day.73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Hi Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs). You make so much empty talk about good faith/bad faith, I'm sorry to say, but all you did was (1) removed ref. 6 (Suny) because your fellow editor (t · c) buidhe had done such a terrible job not even checking on whether a particular segment of the text matches the text of a source it refers to, and (2) added Sivas, the sixth vilayet, to the infobox where five vilayets were mentioned, apparently because your same fellow editor (t · c) buidhe wasn't good in math in high school. These are the minor edits you'd made so far. But you've left all other, more significant, parts of the text which required revision based on RSs containing other significant views untouched. So, next time, please keep this crap about bad faith/good faith to yourself, okay? I'm only trying to be nice with you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

This seems like more problematic personalizing. I'm glad you pointed out some clear problems I was able to fix. I'm ok with our disagreement over the rest, and the talk page has many watchers that might agree with you. It's very common here to disagree, though we usually do so with less acrimony. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't write to me again or I can be very rude.73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

July 2024

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Armenian genocide that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which one didn't seem very "civil" to you and why aren’t you around when your fellow editors refuse to reply to article improvement suggestions, implement RS-based edits containing significant points of view, and correct their falsifications of original source texts? Is this behavior considered civil by your standards? Thank you too.73.173.64.115 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

"Are you deaf and dumb?" is quite self-evidently not a civil thing to say to another editor.

Not replying to an article improvement suggestion would not, in itself, constitute uncivil behaviour in my view, no. But frankly it doesn't matter; even if it is true that other editors are engaging in less-than-acceptable behaviour (I have no knowledge of or opinion on that in this case - today is the first I have heard of this apparently long-running dispute), that in no ways justifies your use of personal attacks. I encourage you to seek recourse if you believe you have been wronged. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not replying to an article improvement suggestion constitutes more than uncivil behavior, it is a violation of WP:TP. Refusal to implement RS-based edits containing significant viewpoints constitutes more than uncivil behavior, it is a violation of WP:CONFLICTING. Refusal to correct falsifications of original source texts constitutes more than uncivil behavior, it is a violation of WP:FICTREF. I, of course, understand your impulse to defend your fellow BFF editors, but please refrain from making false accusations such as “use of personal attacks”. There is nothing derogatory in the question "Are you deaf and dumb?" because I particularly asked this one-of-the-kind editor (t · c) buidhe not to reply to my question re: how to contact editors with extra privileges. She nevertheless ignored this. Thus my question. Lastly, I don’t need to be encouraged to seek recourse because it is not about me having been wronged. It is about your own Wikipedia policies and regulations that are being violated. So please redirect your offer of help to your inimitable editors assigned to the article Armenian genocide and encourage them to stop behaving as if they own it. They should know that this is another violation, of WP:OWN.73.173.64.115 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 years for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Editor refuses to understand that the Armenian Genocide is explicitly included within the scope of GS/AA." So?! The Talk page for Armenian Genocide article is available for readers and contributors, it is not extended-protected. And I contribute. To Armenian Genocide, not Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Prove it, if you can, for everyone here to see. What is it that I "refuse to understand" despite "several(?!) warnings"? What several warnings? Have you ever made warnings about not using the Armenian Genocide Talk page? No? Then chill.73.173.64.115 (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

"As told at Armenian Genocide, Azerbaijan has ties to the conflict." Lol. First, Armenian Genocide was not a conflict, it was a mass atrocity event. Second, Azerbaijan did not exist as a nation in 1915 to have "ties" to the "conflict". Jesus Christ... How can semi-knowledgeable, semi-literate editors be employed at an online encyclopedia? Third, AGAIN, the Talk page for Armenian Genocide is open for contributions to improve the article. And this is what I have been doing with no Rosguill ^talk popping up in my page and ever giving me "warnings"(?!) about not doing so. And fourth, administrator, why aren't you around when your inimitable editors, such as these ones (t · c) buidhe and Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) violate your own Wikipedia policies (WP:TP, WP:CONFLICTING, WP:FICTREF, WP:OWN)? You're supposed to be unbiased, are you not?73.173.64.115 (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

@Yamla (talk). You are obviously false. How could I edit an article which is extended-protected? Are you in your senses? Besides, allow me to educate you that Talk pages are not intended for editing. These are pages (also known as discussion pages) where editors can discuss improvements to articles. I was never "well aware"(?!) that Armenian Genocide Talk page (repeat: Talk page not the article) is within the scope of GS/AA. And I have never been previously "clearly told this'(?!). Stop spewing lies. Prove it right here that anyone has ever "clearly told" me that the Talk page (repeat: Talk page and not the article) was within the scope of GS/AA. If you fail, I will declare you a petty liar. How about that?73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

@Rosguill ^talk, Yamla (talk). I'm trying to understand the logic, if I may say so, of Wikipedia editors. If the Talk page of Armenian Genocide is within the scope of GS/AA, why is it openly available for discussions on improvements to the article? And, also, did you block everyone who posted improvement suggestions on that Talk page? I would like to see with my own eyes that everyone who suggested improvements on the Talk page has been blocked. If you fail to do so, I will notify your administrators that you are discriminating against me only. Okay?73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

@Yamla (talk). You mentioned that my contribution history has no fewer than 25 edits. I demand that you direct me to a Wikipedia policy that limits the number of edits a contributor can make to a Talk page. If you fail to do so, I'll declare you a professionally unfit editor. Sounds fair?73.173.64.115 (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

You pinged me THREE TIMES here. Don't ever ping me again. To answer your questions. Above, you said on 23 October 2023, "User Rosguill accused me of editing a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. I’ve NEVER edited any such page". Acroterion responded, "[...]nor is pretending that Talk:Armenian genocide is not related to Armenia". You calim, "Talk pages are not intended for editing". I think there's a mistranslation on your part here. Talk pages are most certainly intended for editing and you have edited talk pages many times. The talk page for the Armenian Genocide falls into the contentious topics restrictions. You subsequently say, "How could I edit an article which is extended-protected?". I'm not accusing you of editing an article which is extended-protected, I'm saying you edited a talk page which is part of the contentious topics restrictions. Why is it openly available, you ask. There's no need to protect it; instead, people are warned, as you were on 19 October 2023, about the restrictions. Additionally, one of the banners at the top of Talk:Armenian genocide clearly states, "The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, which has been designated as a contentious topic." Perhaps you misunderstand the difference between an article, a talk page, and a page. All articles are pages. All talk pages are pages. Claiming you are being discriminated against is ludicrious. Finally, you say, "You mentioned that my contribution history has no fewer than 25 edits. I demand that you direct me to a Wikipedia policy that limits the number of edits a contributor can make to a Talk page." I made no such claim that there's a limit to the number of edits a contributor can make to a talk page. I said, "Special:Contributions/73.173.64.115 shows your contribution history which has no fewer than 25 edits to Talk:Armenian genocide this week alone. You are well aware that this page is within the scope of GS/AA having been previously clearly told this." If you look at your contribution log, you can see you made 25 edits to Talk:Armenian genocide. I mean, that's public record. You claimed, "I never made any editing of Armenia/Azerbaijan-related topics" but Talk:Armenian genocide is very specifically listed as a page "related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts". I mean, it's right there near the top of the page. --Yamla (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False. Educate yourself here: WP:TPG "The purpose of a page's associated talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to DISCUSS editing that page". P.S. If you didn't pop up at my user talk page, I wouldn't have pinged you. Chill.73.173.64.115 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

You don't have to listen to what I and multiple other people, and the article talk page, have told you, but WP:IDHT explains why you probably should. Regardless, it's very clear this block is appropriate and necessary. --Yamla (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We all should listen only to what Wikipedia policies, guidelines and regulations say, and not to what some editors here mumble. The block based on absurd premise that I edited(?!) a Talk page, whereas in reality I only discussed improvements is, of course, a cheap trumped-up case of your fellow BFF editors. Instead of dressing down policy-violating authors and editors of this article Armenian Genocide, all your BFF editors can do is to place blocks. Deeply intellectual business...73.173.64.115 (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here 73.173.64.115 (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You give "your reason here" as your reason to request unblocking; perhaps you mean the above statement instead. As told at Armenian Genocide, Azerbaijan has ties to the conflict. Sanctions like these at issue are interpreted broadly- any connection at all triggers them. 331dot (talk) 07:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

I never made any editing of Armenia/Azerbaijan-related topics. Why am I blocked and aren't you ashamed of lying?

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here 73.173.64.115 (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please learn how to make unblock requests. WP:GAB explains how. You note above, "I never made any editing of Armenia/Azerbaijan-related topics". This is obviously false. Special:Contributions/73.173.64.115 shows your contribution history which has no fewer than 25 edits to Talk:Armenian genocide this week alone. You are well aware that this page is within the scope of GS/AA having been previously clearly told this. Yamla (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

My intention, as a specialist in the field, to improve this article Armenian Genocide is not connected in any way with the block placed by Rosguill ^talk. This individual claims that “editor [me] refuses to understand that the Armenian Genocide is explicitly included within the scope of GS/AA.” But, lol, editor [me] has never edited (in fact, I couldn’t have edited) the article Armenian Genocide because it is extended-protected, something that Rosguill ^talk must have known before placing his absurd block. I only contributed to the associated talk page of that article, which, according to WP:TPG, “is open to provide space for editors to discuss editing that page”. And this is exactly what I did, I discussed editing that page, made professional RS-based contributions to the discussion. The Talk page is not an article page (as is understood from WP:TPG), something Rosguill must have known before placing his ridiculous block. The Talk page for the article Armenian Genocide is not extended-protected, and is, in fact, freely available and open to contributions that discuss improvements to the article. The actions of Rosguill ^talk are, therefore, in sheer violation of WP:TPG. If the Talk page of the article Armenian Genocide is within the scope of GS/AA, as Rosguill falsely states (because, again, Talk page is not the article page), then why is it openly available to everyone for discussions on improvements to the article? Has everyone who posted improvement suggestions on that Talk page been blocked by Rosguill ^talk? I’d like to see the evidence of this. If it was only me who has been blocked, then, in addition to my unblock request, I also request that an administrative action be taken against Rosguill ^talk for discrimination. Thank you.73.173.64.115 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Decline reason:

It has been repeatedly explained to you that talk pages fall under the contentious topics designation and your unrelenting WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour has exhausted community and admin patience; I have therefore revoked your talk page access. Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I strongly urge the reviewing administrator to revoke talk page access for the duration of the block. This is as clear a case of WP:IDHT as I've ever seen here. --Yamla (talk) 16:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you interfering in my right to make an unblock request? Which Wikipedia policy gives you such an authority? Let the reviewing administrator do his/her job.73.173.64.115 (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Davidian[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.