User talk:Mamikonian

Welcome[edit]

Welcome...

Hello, Mamikonian, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Linguisticgeek

Again, welcome! LinguisticGeek 18:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mamikonian (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Legion (& Vasco Horta e Costa)[edit]

Re Portuguese Legion & Vasco Horta e Costa:
Please take a look at talk:Portuguese Legion (Napoleonic Wars)#Cleanup needed: subject to A7 and ProD. Either that talk page, or immediately following my sig, within this new secn on your talk page, would be a good place to catch my attention, if you need technical help, or friendly advice, from me.
--Jerzy•t 16:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The situation at Talk:Vasco Horta e Costa (politician) is now similar.
--Jerzy•t 20:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org.

I suspect you are a sockpuppet of User:G.-M. Cupertino as your editing history is extremely similar. Instructions for contesting the block are above. DrKiernan (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've seen User:G.-M. Cupertino and I can't find any similarity, extreme or otherwise. Can you be more specific?

Decline reason:

This user is checkuser Confirmed as being the same as LoveActresses (talk · contribs), who was blocked as a sock of G.-M. Cupertino.TN X Man 16:00, 18 November 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm currently using a computer in a public space. It seems to be the case that I've used the same IP address of LoveActresses (talk · contribs).

Decline reason:

You also seem to be editing similar obscure articles, and the same one in at least one case. A more comprehensive request is needed here. Kuru (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Which articles are obscure? User:LoveActresses and User:G.-M. Cupertino seem to be turned more to British genealogies and such. The only edits I've made for Britain so far are just a propos of the engagement of William and Kate. I naturally stumbled on his ancestors and his great-great-grandmother's page, the only "obscure" but connected to non-obscure articles, and made a small edit too. Beside that, nothing else. Unless you want to block everone who makes two or three edits on British royalty pages there is no basis for the accusation. About the computer I'm using, it's a public network of the National Archives, that might include even more than that.

Decline reason:

I see no reason to doubt the conclusions. Talkpage access revoked as well. Syrthiss (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2010 (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.

Let me repeat myself - you are

Confirmed as being LoveActresses. That's really all there is to it. TN X Man 16:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My IP address (network) is confirmed as being the one used by LoveActresses. That doesn't make me LoveActresses... Mamikonian (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came here from User talk:Harry Tudor. I have been looking through the edits of User:Mamikonian and for example this creation of José Maria de Sousa Horta e Costa looks nothing like the style used by sockpuppets of User:G.-M. Cupertino such as user:LoveActresses. Apart from the one edit to Ruth Roche, Baroness Fermoy. But there is a legitimate edit trail in the user's edit history to the article via this edit to the Kate Middleton article.

The two things I can see counting in favour of the block is the date the account became active and the check user information (for which I think User:Mamikonian gives a credible answer).

Having spent days in good faith discussions by me with LoveActresses to try persuade (what turned out to be a sock but I did not know it) that (s)he had to provide credible sources and not add trivia (what a waste of time that was) And having spent hours in the last couple of days cleaning the articles linked to Baron Cobham because of the pollution of the area by the socks 193.136.1.14 and Konakonian, I don't want to needlessly unleash trouble, but if I assume good faith then I am not sure this block is correct and I would like some further discussion on this block as I think we may have been hasty. -- PBS (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you would even consider that. The edit by Mamikonian that tipped me to his sockpuppetry closes matches an edit by G.-M. Cupertino on the same article of an obscure royal ancestor.

G.-M. Cupertino concentrates on and creates articles on obscure figures in Category:Portuguese nobility, e.g. José Carlos O'Neill, Jorge Torlades O'Neill I. User:Harry Tudor/User:Mamikonian does the same, e.g. António de Sousa Horta Sarmento Osório, António Mota de Sousa Horta Osório.

The IP used by Mamikonian matches the IP used by LoveActresses.

The names "Konakonian" and "Mamikonian" are obviously related.

I am certain that this is another sock, and oppose any unblock. DrKiernan (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DrKiernan you've convinced me. -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]