User talk:92slim

This is my Talk Page. Please post content disputes in its correspondent article's talk page. Feel free to post any other inquieries here.

Hi 92slim! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 16:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply ]

Thank you for the notice. I am only starting to understand how to navigate these shores. --92slim (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article ? its nothing new actually, I just cut all the sections about the controversy and pasted them in one place. There is no theories, the article only give you a summary of what happened and the nature of the conflict ! you should read before getting aggressive.

I reverted your edit because we dont need a

Unfortunately, that is what is been done in that article. Things being deleted and replaced is a way to fork content. --92slim (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You want those informations to be mentioned in both articles !? when a subject is big enough, we create an article for it and add a summary in the main article. the controversy ,materials are big enough and a summary in Ebla tablets should be enough !--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is already going on in the Talk:Ebla tablets. The problem is that changing the content included in the source shouldn't be done. --92slim (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo 92slim, thanks for writing! Unfortunately I have at present no time to join the discussion , since I am moving. :-( After having read the contributions, I think that the problem there is about the reliability of the given heterogeneous sources. About that, you could try to post a question to the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Alex2006 (talk) 08:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about merging Malta exiles article with Effort to prosecute Ottoman war criminals? They're both practically the same info.

Are you some kind of prosecutor? or just a turkophobic one,which focused to stalk and emphasize on Ottoman period crimes...Kamuran Ötükenli (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Étienne Dolet (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry, I don't understand what you expect regarding the article. I don't edit regularly here anymore, but as I told you, I am available if you have any questions or worries regarding that article or related topics. What do you mean by "help with the article"? In my opinion, and as I wrote on the talk page, there are no major issues with it, even though the style could be improved here or there. What would your concerns be? In any case, I don't really know who's active these days in that area, I only remember Kober as an editor knowledgeable in Georgian topics and nice to work with. Hope that helps, and please follow up with me if you have more specific questions. Susuman77 (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Susuman77:I meant, with the report (from southcaucasus.com) that you have provided on the talk page - I apologize for the confusion. I will ask Kober if he could help with it. Thanks for your advice. --92slim (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Posts at ANI are archived rather than being deleted so as to ensure that an accurate history of what has happened there is recorded. If you've made a post there and it no longer needs dealing with just mention that its dealt with and someone will close it down. Hope that makes sense. Let me know if you need any further clarification. Amortias (T)(C) 19:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for that. Thank you, will do so from now on. --92slim (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I want to point out that repeatedly accusing someone of being a sockmaster is a personal attack, even if you add an "alleged" to it. The SPI against Tiptoe did not find him guilty as accused, so drop it. Thomas.W ^talk 15:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned user has changed his behaviour recently so that accounted for the decision taken to archive the case, in spite of many users accusing him of repeatedly engaging in bad faith editing during the past year. If he keeps his current behaviour, he can carry on editing in so far as he doesn't use sock IP's again, I have no particular objections to him apart from his past behaviour, which was named as unconstructive and disruptive by many users. I am sorry if this could be taken as a personal attack. --92slim (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, he wasn't blocked because the admin deciding the case at SPI didn't find the evidence compelling, in spite of the clerk doing so, but cases are decided by the admins, not the clerk, just like court cases are decided by the judges, not the court clerks. The later comment was regarding IP activity, with no connection made to Tiptoe. So what you're saying is a clear misrepresentation of the case. Don't do that, it will only make you look bad, since most people here check things, like I did. Thomas.W ^talk 17:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, I am both an admin and a SPI clerk. Some cases may be decided by non-admin clerks but when it comes to blocking and other actions with the tools relative to the case it requires an admin's purview. No admin should just accept a non-admin decision without doing their due diligence to make sure that they also concur. Admins are responsible for their actions with the tools and it wouldn't be acceptable to block with a rationale that they simply accepted another's finding as ipse dixit. Cases may be closed by non-admin clerks, non-clerk admins, clerk admins or checkusers.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how I look, because that's not why he wasn't blocked; maybe you could read the diff that you posted to understand the reason. There is no reference to the "evidence being not compelling"; no one has ever stated that before, and the link you have provided doesn't contain such a thing. --92slim (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the problem is that you can't understand plain English, or dont want to understand plain English when it doesn't suit you, but the comment you linked to shows exactly what I said, that Tiptoe wasn't blocked because of the evidence not being compelling enough. Thomas.W ^talk 07:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand you perfectly. Maybe you should learn how to read in general. --92slim (talk) 07:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry, I know how to read, I also know how to evaluate evidence in sock puppet investigations, and how to track sock masters and their socks. Thomas.W ^talk 07:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You also know how to be insurmountably challenging. Please, find a better thing to do than to defend an alleged sockpuppet who was already cleared. --92slim (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

treating WP as a battleground. Calling someone troll as well as telling someone to go away who is !voting in an AfD are just a couple of the problems here. You should take time to reflect on how you are approaching editing. Please read this essay.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok. --92slim (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

92slim (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log

)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "92slim". The reason given for 92slim's block is: "Personal attacks or harassment".

• Blocking administrator: Berean Hunter (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: The IP was blocked because it was used while the account was still blocked, but that shouldn't have affected your account once the block on the account ran out. Huon (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unblocked so why is my IP blocked? --92slim (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After this unblock, I took notice that the user (User:Wikimandia) who so avidly requested me being blocked, after vandalizing my talk page, refusing to engage in constructive AfD discussion and showing innapropiate childish behaviour and false edit summaries (hint:

That comment has been taken care of and removed. I hope you're OK with how it worked out (so far). —BarrelProof (talk) 08:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BarrelProof: Yes, thanks a lot mate. --92slim (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24h for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you opened a RfC on Talk:Muhammad. It is still open. The majority so far clearly opposes to your suggestion. And still you go to the article and remove sourced info with the comment "NOT IN THE FUCKING SOURCES". Your behavior all the time was borderline, you were blocked previously, and I hope it will stop with this block. If you do not realize that what you are doing is inappropriate, it is likely that you would be blocked longer term.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter:It doesn't matter, because the sources don't contain the phrase, so your opinion is completely irrelevant. If there were any sources to back it up, it could be added back - as is the consensus. But the consensus was obviously based on bunk. If you haven't realised, most edits done by Freeatlastchitchat are usually bunk, based on bunk, to put down Islam, backed by bunk Western propaganda. Now, to admit it, is another story, for another day - it's not as if I'm editing Muhammad to write something bad about Muhammad, quite the opposite rings true here. --92slim (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, my opinion is relevant. You are welcome to post an unblock request and see what other administrators have to say.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Your opinion is completely irrelevant, since you're simply wrong. The sentence is not backed by any sources; period. --92slim (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing the sources, of which I have no opinion, but your disruptive behavior, which was the reason why I blocked you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: No, we're discussing sources, and you're wrong for blocking me because my edits were right. My behaviour used as a strawman...irrelevant. If you wanna discuss behaviour, I can tell you, my edits would be just reverted by those trolls anyway, so whatever you say is irrelevant. Hence, your opinion is...irrelevant. Not personal, mate. --92slim (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good, then we have a difference in opinions. Happy holidays, and see you back tomorrow.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Yes, I'm right, that's why your block, opinion or say is irrelevant; you have no point to argue, since my edit content is unaddressed. Please, don't become a groupie of the anti-Muslim zoo - there are enough of those Islamophobe editors here, as you can see. --92slim (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Armenia–Israel relations page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Can you clarify what you mean when you say there's no abridged version? Thanks. Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupert Clayton: Thanks for your contribution. I'd like to clarify the situation in the article. Mehmet Perincek, the man who claims to have found a "new unabridged translation", or someone representing him in person edited this article many years ago (that link and also for example this one provide a revert made by another user), trying to convince everyone that the original report wasn't to be found anywhere in the world and that the ARF party sought to censore and hide the facts. This simply couldn't be further from the truth. He mastered the art of masking the facts using convoluted and implausible explanations and ultranationalist Turkish sources. The facts were on the table: 1) His supposed "original unabridged Russian copy" was nowhere to be found, because it simply didn't exist 2) The original text is freely available around the world, in several languages. 3) All translations, except from Callender's famous abridged English version, represent the complete text. Nevertheless, Callender's version keeps the important part verbatim, the part (up to page 8) that underlines that a holocaust had in fact happened at the hand of the Turks. Perincek knew this, and used it for his own advantage. The fact that Callender's translation is the only abridged edition served his political motives; therefore using one edition out of a thousands just to undermine the others is ultimately undue. TLDR: No translations of the main preface written by Kajaznuni, where he calls out the Turks for commiting a holocaust, are abridged.--92slim (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That makes plenty of sense. I agree that the key thing is that the description of the genocide is faithfully translated. The minute history of Armenian politics in the 1920s is of lesser interest. Rupert Clayton (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the article to make clear that Perinçek's allegation about an abridged version is not true. I think this is more solid than just ignoring the allegation entirely.Rupert Clayton (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The original text is freely available around the world, in several languages" - where? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have written a response on the article's TP on what I know about the man and the book. I'm not sure if the book is freely available, in different languages, around the world - that sounds like complete bullshit to me. But it's definitely available in Armenian circles. --92slim (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Khojaly should not be included because it is talking about anti-Azerbaijani sentiment in Armenia. Khojaly is not in Armenia. If something happened in Yerevan, Gyumri, or any other territory of Armenia then obviously it should be added but since that city is not in Armenia it should not be added. Ninetoyadome (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - I almost forgot Karabakh is not part of Armenia. --92slim (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey 92slim,

Would you be able to give me a link where its stated that the Erivan Khanate flag is located in the Museum of the History of Azerbaijan?[2] Thanks much! - LouisAragon (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LouisAragon: Here you go. --92slim (talk) 11:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since your previous edits, before your last revert, restored material which was previously removed, with discussion on talk, you have just broken the 1 revert restriction which is in place on the article. I guess you might have forgotten that the article was subject to a 1RR limitation so I'll assume good faith and simply ask you to self revert. Please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also put aside the issue, for the moment, that what you are doing is grossly misrepresenting sources and engaging in POV original research intended to smear a living person which is a violation of

@Volunteer Marek: I'm quoting the official website of SyriaHR from back in 2011. The actual smear is not even included in the article. The website clearly mentions he stole the details of the website for himself - that's not mentioned in Wikipedia. What is mentioned is the connection of SyriaHR to Barada TV, which you can see from WebArchive. Carefully read and understand what that means. I will self revert the Guardian article that I reverted, which is irrelevant anyway. Maybe you can link a source that proves he is a reliable news organization - I doubt you can find such a source. There is no original research, simply links to the original site as far as I can see. --92slim (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in discussing the content issue here. You violated 1RR on the article which can result in a block. I'm asking you and giving you the chance, to self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: I can clearly see that you're not interested in discussing the content. You're right. Please do change. 92slim (talk) 00:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said I'm not interested in discussing it HERE. We can discuss on the appropriate talk page. But you really need to revert the entire edit, especially given the gross BLP violations, rather than just doing a partial self revert.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: I reverted it to how it was before. See here, and stop with the unfounded accusations. I'm simply quoting sources, that's all. --92slim (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Appreciate it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, now you violated it again [3] (blind revert to your previous version [4] during less than 24 hours). Did you do it on purpose? My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't, because it's not the same edit. It's a simple copyedit, as you can see, the article was not ordered chronologically and now it is. You can remove the POV tag, I didn't put it there. 92slim (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your previous edit was revert (removal of sourced text "Abdulrahman reports on events in the Syrian uprising, including the deaths of civilians, rebels and army defectors..."). " An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. -

WP:3RR. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

No, it wasn't removed. Again, I simply put that section that in the lede, since they report every faction in the war I thought that's relevant. Please check the edit carefully, there was no content removed at all - it's just a ce. Revert or not, I simply ordered it chronologically, and you just made it messy again, inadvertently. I guess you just assumed I wanted to change the content. 92slim (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was an obvious revert. You removed several parts of text, including "such as

National Public Radio", which arguably belongs to this page. You was warned. That kind of things can be reported to WP:3RRNB. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

That's the only thing I removed because it bloats the lede - everyone knows what major news media means. As I said, you're the one who reverted me, even though I did a copyedit. Better you explain why you did it. --92slim (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to report anything now, but keep in mind that your last "fix" does not help. Your first edit was in fact a revert (no matter what you do right now), and your second edit was revert of my edit. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but your explanations can be better. The article can be improved only if we discuss the content or sources, which you refuse to do on the article's TP. 92slim (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 92slim. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 92slim. All or some of your addition(s) to Armenian mafia has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double
  inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners
  , for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is
  Wikipedia:Copy-paste
  .
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@

The content is reproduced at several locations online. Regardless, the Armenianow.com web page is marked as being " © Copyright ArmeniaNow.com 2002-2006. All rights reserved" so you can't copy it here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: That's great, but how can I rephrase it now to make it possible to include more information in Wikipedia? Because the revision history is gone; it would be nice to start to work from there, rather than to go through this archived article again. --92slim (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a copy of the removed material by email. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Thanks. --92slim (talk) 08:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind commenting at User talk:Izno#Polygyny? --Izno (talk) 13:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to the message you left on my talk page. Please could you respond to my comments there? Thanks, zazpot (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for Making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per this attack on Iryna Harpy's talk page, "From now on your input is pretty much a sack of shite." EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. Sorry, I snapped. Forgot for a second what we're doing here. 92slim (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

You may interest this case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc. I agree with you, there is an obvious sockpuppetry.46.221.213.142 (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree, there is a clear pattern with random IPs making the same kind of edits there. --92slim (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice other vandalism(s) by the same sockpuppet, please immediately report him. This vandal is a long-term abuser, take a look at previous case. 46.221.213.142 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@46.221.213.142: Do you know anything about Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Delotrooladoo - this sockpuppet user? Please check the "comments by other users", this sockpuppet has also has been using Argentinian IPs. Very wierd timing. --92slim (talk) 11:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@92slim:, Please explain why you reverted my legitimate edit? Carlotm (talk) 14:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlotm: There is an ongoing sockpuppetry investigation, because random IPs keep changing up the sources that clearly refer to the Armenian Genocide as inspiring Lemkin on coining Genocide, and adding Simele massacre as an inspiration, even if there are no RS sources for this. You have done just that, in the lede and etymology, just like the socks, so you're a suspect now. This has been done too many times already. --92slim (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@92slim:, I am not a sockpuppet and if the Simele massacre is incorrect i'll remove from my edit (I didn't check sources; mostly I simply collaged differently the information already present). Carlotm (talk) 14:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlotm: The information about Simele massacre was not already present, it had been completely deleted from the article. That's already a red flag pal. --92slim (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@92slim: The information about Simele massacre was already present when I started working on the page, because I copied the 23:12, 2017 January 10‎ edition by 186.137.89.19 and worked offline. So please don't continue to insinuate incorrect assumptions.Carlotm (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlotm: If so, then please wait until the sockpuppet investigation is over and/or don't add or modify the lead or etymology information again. Reliable sources are pretty clear on that. Too many IPs doing this shit already over too many weeks, sorry for that. --92slim (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@92slim: OK. Then let me know when the page is open for edit again. I hope quite soon. Carlotm (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlotm: Okay. But that Simele massacre etymology is totally against the majority of sources and not even properly backed by them, as you can see in the article. Please don't add that, unless you seek consensus. Thank you for actually trying to help. --92slim (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@92slim:, I already removed Simele massacre from Etymology (in my offline copy). The lede does not mention it anyway. So if that's all I may put my changes online tomorrow. Carlotm (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlotm: Your edit completely modified the sources in the lede and the etymology relating to the Armenian Genocide. Please don't do those changes again or I'll revert you. --92slim (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@92slim:, my current offline copy has "the [[Armenian Genocide]];{{r|Auron04|Schabas00|Moses04|ushmm_Lem|JWW_Lem}}", which content is exactly the same as yours "the [[Armenian Genocide]];<ref name=aur/><ref name=schab/><ref name=moses/><ref name=ushmm/><ref name=jww/>", except for the title of "JWW_Lem" aka "jww" Genocide Background, which is incorrect; it should be Genocide & Mass Atrocities. For "Etymology" I have no idea what you are pointing at. So try to be clear in your assertions and let editors do their job. Carlotm (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Carlotm: I have just read @Tiptoethrutheminefield: response on the ANI which is closed now, and he's right. The simplest way to put it is that the edit you have made had too many changes, for an article as difficult to deal with as Genocide. The problem I saw was the rearrangement of the sources that were right next to Armenian Genocide in the lead and the etymology part. In your edit, you moved the sources the sources towards the end of later the Holocaust emphasized its raison d'être, and in the Etymology section, you moved them towards at the hands of the Young Turks government of the Ottoman Empire - both rearrangements looked strange since the sources very plainly emphasize that it was the Armenian massacres that inspired him, not the actors (the Young Turks) and the sources didn't really emphasize the Holocaust. The suspicion of sockpuppetry was made because of the recent numerous socks and making the addition right after that of and later, in 1933, by the Simele massacre in Iraq, Lemkin has been filmed saying he was inspired by the Armenian experience. Those particular sentences and their sources simply cannot be rearranged and that Simele massacre part is obviously from a non RS journal, so it has to be discussed before being added. Please understand that this article has been edited ad infinitum by sockpuppets and vandals trying to remove those specific parts and/or rearrange them during the past years (check the revision history) and the article is included in here - Wikipedia:List_of_controversial_issues#History. There might be other problems with that edit, but these are the ones that I focused on. --92slim (talk) 07:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@92slim:, you should have already inferred by my preceding intervention that the Armenian Genocide sources were erroneously located and that I already corrected that error. On the ANI page I already responded to Tiptoethrutheminefield. Carlotm (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlotm: You mean on your offline copy? That's fine. But the edit you made had those sources on the wrong place. I was just responding since you said you had no idea what I was pointing at. --92slim (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just a friendly reminder that the exemption in the 3RR-rules ("Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.") only applies to edits made by verifiably banned users and confirmed sockpuppets. Merely suspecting that someone is a sock isn't a valid reason for reverting all of their edits, and guarantees no exemption from the 3RR-rules since all suspected socks are presumed innocent until found guilty (and often are innocent, judging by CU-results etc at SPI). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but sock has been confirmed already. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Delotrooladoo --92slim (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, yes, but not when you edit-warred against them, and made eight reverts, and as you can see in that SPI only one of the two reported named accounts was confirmed, i.e. a 50% hit rate. This comment of yours also shows that you firmly believed that reverting a suspected sockpuppet exempted you from the 3RR-rules, which it doesn't, it also shows another misunderstanding of yours, edits by banned users and confirmed socks may be reverted, but there's no rule that says they must be reverted. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 15:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You must observe

You have been reblocked from editing for a period of 1 month for personally attacking other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Your block has been extended to 1 month and your talk page editing privileges have been revoked due to your persistent personal attacks on other editors even after being twice blocked for similar behavior. Please consider things carefully between now and when you come off block. I do not like blocking people but if I have to do this again it will very likely be indefinite. The choice is yours. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of

Hello, 92slim. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]