Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an automatic way to do it? I keep forgetting it. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CANVASS. Attempting to rouse "your side" of a discussion is an offense against Wikipedia policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I've done because I saw on a user's page of the same kind notification for a previous move request. You link also suggest that I have the right to inform members to improve the discussion. Most people who oppose the move request in the past already participated in the recent one but the same cannot be for those who supported. My attempt was to simply improve the discussion at hand. There is not violation of Wiki rules here rather than your attempt to keep your side strong. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no right to collect one side of a discussion; why should you presume that you had? If you do so again, I will ask to have you blocked.

I am not part of a "side"; my cause is the English language, solely - and I have protested Greek nationalism as well.

And stay off my talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to editing Wiki so I don't really know how this talk pages work. I simply put the same message in both places and assumed that you were decent enough to tell me gently which one is the norm. I'm sorry that I'm mistaken on decency. I have explained to you in detail and length why your argument is false. I don't know if you're hiding behind the "English Language" curtain here but you've been proven to be wrong about it. I can only ask from you to accept the facts and stop clinging to straw men arguments. I did not collect one side of an argument but people who were not present. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop inserting the word 'claim', or similar, into the above mentioned article for the time being. Such edits are controversial; please gain consensus for them first on the talk page. Stating your opinion there does not mean you can go ahead and make the changes anyway - engage with the other editors and reply to their concerns, first. Your current conduct is disruptive. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update to the above: looking at the history, your edits have been reverted half a dozen times today already, by various editors. Stop making those changes now, and discuss on the talk page. If not you may be blocked from editing. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just the "claim" edit but also the "Armenian sources" edit. I have explained both reverts in the discussion page yet the Armenians deleted them without adding anything to the discussion. Both the word claim and Armenian sources edits were there before. I only reverted the edit by an Armenian member and explained why I did it in the discussion page. I'm not the one reverting here but they're the ones. If they want to re-edit these sections they need consensus in the discussion page. You have to realize it's not my edits that are reverted but it's theirs and they're the ones not participating in the discussion. I cannot understand your delusion. I will keep reverting back to the first version concerning this particular issue as long they keep on not participating in the discussion for these edits. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke, you already reverted 7 times today. Sardur (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of this. Sardur (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally thank you and appreciate you for defending the falsification in the Armenian Genocide page and telling the other point of view about this subject.--Lonewolf94 (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some of your recent posts, you have made some assumptions of bad faith and uncivil remarks. If this continues, you're going to get blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me examples of such examples? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments such as this are problematic. PhilKnight (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It get's rather hard not to mention when edits are constantly reverted by Armenians and even discussion on the discussion page are deleted. There is no bad faith nor uncivil remarks by me. I'm simply making a legitimate point. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked for a period of 31 hours from editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read our guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. Tim Song (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Notice to administrators: In a 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."

For what reason is this retarded block is issued for? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring - See here. Knock off the incivility as well. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect me to say when any kind of edit I do is reverted without any input in the discussion page when I continually ask for the edits to be discussed in the discussion page before being done which I do myself. My posts in the discussion page is even deleted. Then my revert is reverted twice by three different members and I'm the one getting the ban. I come here and don't even try to change the entirety of an article, just inaccurate bits and pieces there and suddenly I'm labeled as a nationalistic Turk on a propaganda spree but no, when I make the point that most people who make the edits on that certain article are either Greeks or Armenian I'm suddenly the one with the incivility. I'm still new to editing and still learning. How do you expect me to be more respectful when I can't see anything even close to that level of respect? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I almost blocked you for this edit [1] which is a clear assumption of bad faith but decided that might have been a one-off done in the heat of your receiving the restriction notice. I was wrong. You could also have been blocked for this [2], this [3] or this [4] -- in all those edits you assume bad faith because of nationality. No one is claiming that nationalism isn't a problem, but you are editing under restrictions and if you ignore them, you will be blocked. You need to learn quickly how to abide by these restrictions if you wish to be able to continue editing these articles. Dougweller (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not assume any kind of bad faith due to ethnicity. What I did was a generalization based on ethnicity. A rather accurate one. I haven't seen any Armenian or Greek person arguing against the genocide claims with the exception of only two people. It is safe to assume that the probability of someone editing that article is either an Armenian or a Greek. There is no assumption of bad faith in any of the statements I made in any way. They simply point out an observation. On the other hand many sources are disregarded just because they're Turkish. So the real assumption of bad faith is by the other editors who have reverted any edit I have made just because the source is Turkish and it doesn't agree with them. Any of the sources I presented, even for non-Turkish, are dismissed just because I'm Turkish. The assumption of bad faith is done on my par. I'd like to ask you though. Is me saying that a lot of the editors for that article are either Armenian or Greek is an assumption of bad faith or those members claiming that I'm posting propaganda material just because the link is from a Turkish website is an assumption of faith? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know you're Turkish before you said so in this last post of yours, and honestly who cares? you would be Chinese, Mexican or whatever, it wouldn't change my opinion on your contributions.

Same for the sources (and you should understand this at last after the answers you got on WP:RSN) : who cares if they are Turkish? Do you think Taner Akçam would be dismissed because he's Turkish? The only important issue is reliability.

Sardur (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the person I had that discussion with. So the fact that you didn't know that I was Turkish is kinda irrelevant as I neither addressed you nor you accused me of making propaganda.

Taner Akçam is a Turkish citizen who supports the genocide claim. Only he is not dismissed. Any scholar who is a Turkish citizen as long as doesn't agree with the genocide claims are ignored because of their ethnicity and the side they take.

Why are many Turkish historians who are an expert on the issue are not used in the articles?

Why do some users simply ignore websites such as that of ATAA as a reliable source for articles and simply call them propaganda?

The answers I got on the WP:RSN were hardly constructive or even in the purpose of that page. I did not get any answers concerning the reliability of the sources in that page. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain some things to you:

1. No one cares, or should care, if you're Greek or Armenian or Turkish or Martian. No one cares that I'm not a dog, or Mexican. You should edit as though you were none of those things, and you should never, ever assume, accuse, or comment on the ethnicity of anyone else. Comment on the edits, not the editors. Always. WP:AGF with everyone you encounter.
2. We actually take civility fairly seriously here. Don't call someone else's action "retarded" or "stupid". Your comment above "For what reason is this retarded block issued for" is not only grammatically incorrect, it could result in a block all by itself. A mature, civil way to phrase your disagreement would be "I do not understand why I was blocked" or "I disagree with the reasons given for this block" and then state why , with links to evidence or policy.
3. WP:3RR, WP:EW, WP:NPOV - we take these seriously, too. Read them carefully. Study them. Embrace them.

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may not care about ethnicity but at least you could care to read what I wrote about that above. In none of my comments there is an argument like "You're Armenian so you're wrong." It was a simple observation and my first mention of Armenians as users: "The amount of content on the articles depends on how many Armenians involved in editing. As you can see from the English version it's dominated by Armenians and they hardly let any edit that go against their own arguments." It was a response to a user asking for comparison between the same article in different languages. As you can see on that section of the discussion page it was a topic on editing of articles from different languages thus making the type of people editing the article relevant. My argument was that the difference between the Turkish and the English argument and pointed out the different type of people that were editing it. Even though I made no assumption of bad faith, how am I supposed to assume good faith when I'm even threatened to delete my posts in the discussion page?

I wouldn't call it retarded if I wasn't singled out just because I do not agree with some people in that discussion. I have always done this in a civil way but got uncivil replies. Though looking at the list of people that have been put under supervision and warned I see that a good deal of them have also got their share in the past. I simply ask for understanding from you to see how annoying it is for every edit of mine to be reverted without discussion or proof not because my edits were wrong but simply because it did not agree with some other members.

When I did the reverts I did not think that it violated the revert rule as I was reverting a revert which was not explained or even the edit was incorrect in syntax. Also I do have a neutral point of view as I'm not asking for the article to be deleted. Whenever I try to edit something I present sources. I don't simply say "I'm not gonna allow those liars in this article" as some other members did say against. When the ban lifted off I will request that certain article to have full protection so that every single edit is discussed in the discussion page and the mods or the admins can do the edits according to them in a much more professional way. Or you might go ahead and do the request for me.

But I repeat in no way I used ethnicity as an insult or I assumed bad faith. I did not used it as a judgment in any way. It was simply an observation and it's clear from my posts. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How clear can I make this? It does not matter if you say "I love Armenians!" or "Turks are friendly people." Do not mention or speculate or "observe" other editors' ethnicity. Period. This is a warning from an Admin, as well as helpful advice. Regarding "retarded" - not acceptable, for any reason. It does not matter if they're drooling on the keyboard and talking utter nonsense, say "I'm sorry, I don't understand your point" do NOT under any circumstances - is that clear? ANY circumstances - use pejorative terms. And 3RR is not negotiable. I am done now, if you cannot understand this very clear post and persist in defending your indefensible behavior, then you will simply have to live with the consequences. I have tried to help you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just proved to me that you're not here to help me or in a way teach me the ways of Wiki, but simply here to blame. I will not continue arguing with you on this as you made it clear that you're not here to understand or help me. Good job. And, no, you don't really have to respond to this even to say that you will not in a last attempt to gain some pride. End of discussion. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheDarkLordSeth! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts