User talk:Tiptoethrutheminefield

/Archive 1.

Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield! 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! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) talk) 16:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

I think it is the height of bad manners to revert a person's edits when they are MIDWAY through making those edits! You revet something made only 30 seconds earlier, and can't wait another 30 seconds till the edits are complete? (nb - I now know that there is a template code I could have added to the article to indicate I was still editing, but as a new user I can hardly be expected to know that) A valid reason for the tag removal WAS given in the edit summary: "Removing notability and references tags. Adding content with references". [1] The article now has 5 references, before it had none. And the notability tag should never have been there. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. But you can not remove tags yourself. I have reverted your one more edit here where you didn't cite to any source. Putting more and more references are not quite enough, the sources should be independent see

WP:INDEPENDENT that identify notability of subject also. See WP:Notability. If you have any further question, leave your message on my talk page. Thank you. A.Minkowiski (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

And that snide "you are welcome" is of equal bad manners. Of course I can remove tags if there is not a reason for the tags to remain there. Also, try to read the article. The content you deleted (and which I will now restore) is about a book that was linked to in the article's footnotes long before I added the new content. If you have points to make about sources or notability, why not place them in the article's talk page? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please address my concerns at Talk:Etchmiadzin Cathedral. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kingdom of Iberia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

fixed it Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Skies are Weeping may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• the premiere sought to highlight Israeli girls and women killed in suicide bombings during the [[Second Intifada] - calling them the "other Rachels" – while a counter-protest by "pro-Palestine

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

fixed it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Nationalist sock-puppet corrupted the article Yazidis. He also do similar things about Zaza-Gorani people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.140.220.194 (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Things will probably die down once events are off the front pages of event newspaper in the world. It's ironic that a community has to be a victim of ongoing genocide before anyone on Wikipedia bothers about you. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are, for three months, restricted from making more than one revert (as defined at

WP:3RR

) per page in any 24 hour period with respect to pages that relate to the history of Armenia or Georgia.

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked

for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described

here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Sandstein  16:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

is there anyway I can view my content on Anti-Assyrian sentiment? I know the page is deleted, but I'd like to keep the info for personal reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguins53 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Spinningspark the administrator who deleted the page can help [2]. Or see here, though it might not be the latest version (and be quick, copy the text before it is deleted because it is no longer on wikipedia): http://www.wikigrain.org/?req=Anti-Assyrian+sentiment. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You may be interested in this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J04n&oldid=628510613 --Mrjulesd (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm Kmccook. Tiptoethrutheminefield, thanks for creating Pedaling History Bicycle Museum!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Very interesting essay. I hope you can update and expand.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on

Haven't been editing long enough to understand the "bare urls" / "link rot" thing. Will try to expand the article in the future. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your delete comment on this AfD, could you please explain what the problems are with the sources. For example you say that one source "says it all" but not why it does that, you need to explain your thinking in AFDs so that others know why you voted the way you did. The same goes for the one you said is "unintentionally hilarious". Why is sources 3, 6, 7 & 9 garbage? As an admin closing this AFD I would be giving very little weight to your argument as you haven't explained why you think what you do.

Also make sure that you

"Chidinma, prestigious West chidinma been End Suddenly producer back returns this. Ogah and Suddenly". [3] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you know there has been some concern regarding the reverts you are making of Epeefleche.

I have done no such thing - and you complete lack of diffs proves I have done no such thing! Please leave my talk page alone and cease your harassment. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shabbos App is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbos App (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Please read this notification carefully:
A

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here

.

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here

. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester — ☎ 22:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you go to

You seem to be unfamiliar with what a reference is - even though it is carefully explained on

MOS:LAYOUT#Notes_and_references. Your list of articles that have mentioned the subject contains neither citations for specific material in the article nor a list of articles consulted in writing the article. So it can't be called "references". Have now given this explanation on the talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, the sources refer to the events in the plural - so it could be several of the articles linked to by the disambiguation pages that the sources refer to. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest as a short description? she has US citizenship and has been charged with a crime, she also served time in Israel for terrorism offences. Waacstats (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In most parts of the world, and including America where the trial is taking place, persons charged with a crime but not convicted of that crime are not called "criminals". And would persons convicted of immigration offenses usually be classed as criminals, given that the offense is so much determined by localised laws. "Terrorist" is pov and cannot be used. Or if you think it can, why not "Terrorist/freedom fighter"? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Convicted for involvement in terrorist bombing". Waacstats (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Arab-American community activist, convicted in Israel in 1970 for involvement in terrorist bombing, released 1980". Too long? Or why not leave it blank? Esp since it is an ongoing case. Better that than violate blp guidelines or have something that might quickly be out of date. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should also have a look on List of German inventors and discovereres.

German Astronom

see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_German_inventors_and_discoverers&diff=631779639&oldid=630675985 47.64.143.232 (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I have no great interest in that specific subject, and no special knowledge about it either. My concern was about the deletion of material (from any article) deleted for no other reason than the editor who added the content had fallen foul of Wikipedia sanctions. I do not consider that to be a valid reason to delete otherwise accurate content (and I am pleased that I am not alone in that opinion [4]). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've obstructed the DYK nomination for the third time. Please shorten those paragraphs, I don't see why most of the article should be about an exhibition that never took place. Also, please cite them. If these requirements aren't met, I'll have to remove these recent editions.

You should remove nothing and I will oppose any removal: it is all cited and it is all on topic. If anything, that section is too brief even now. Your above words do not seem to match the "I look forward to working with you" said on the DYK page. I appreciate that you created the article. However, while it might irk you - the creator of an article has no ownership over that article or veto over the direction it might take. And, by indicating that you intend to have future content arguments (again, in contrast to what you wrote on the DYK page), it is you who is obstructing the DYK acceptance. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, what obstructed this DYK process was an addition of 2,000+ bytes of unsourced content to an article that has already been accepted as a good to go DYK article. Yoninah's latest comment on the nomination page speaks for itself. Those massive paragraphs were and still are poorly cited additions considering that every sentence was cited up until then. As for working with you, we both agreed in a contructive manner to make any such addition regarding the 2013 exhibition AFTER the DYK process was done. With these latest additions, you've breached that agreement by not only unilaterally adding unsourced paragraphs, but tampering with an article that hasn't completed the DYK process.

Étienne Dolet (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Citing every sentence is not needed. The citation at the end of the paragraph is for everything in that paragraph. There is no need to have multiple citations for undisputed facts, especially since the sources are well-known ones like Washington Post. I have made no such "agreement" with you. I would make no such agreement with anyone. To conclude, and to use your own words, "Can we defer this discussion to the talk page of the article please". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make myself clear as this is my final reply. Citing content that has quotations (especially those belonging to living people) has always been the basic tenet of

Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If you look at the article, everything that reasonably needs a citation HAS a citation, including the Schiff quote, which now has an inline citation (though its source was the same source given at the end of the paragraph). Content is not disputed because some editor just disputes it for no reason, it will be disputed when there are credible sources that dispute the content derived from other credible sources. In this case there are no sources that dispute the content, so multiple inline citations are really not needed. As for citations not formatted properly, again to use your own words: "if you find small problems like that then

WP:FIXIT". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I would've fixed it, Yoninah beat me to it. Clearly, not all quotations were cited ([5][6]). Regards,

Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If problems have already been fixed, then why raise them after the event? The Schiff quote was cited: I said (above) that it now has an inline citation. I put the citation there, not Yoninah. The White House quote also was cited (giving the Michael Doyle source), given at the end of the following sentence which was clearly linked to the content of the quote sentence by the wording "The White House also said". The diff just shows an additional source for the quote, useful but not really required imho. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say, the Beatrix Campbell article has been fussed with again. I'm really pushed for time but thought it worth letting people know in case you want to check the editing out. Testbed (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. After looking into the subject the last time around and finding sources I had intended to do some editing on it, but never got round to doing in (more due to laziness than time pressure for me though). Will have a look. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at that article? The user, who was adding the propaganda to the Turkish-Armenia War is doing the same to the Karabakh War article. I reverted his last edit telling him to add sources, and he reverted and is adding dubious sources which dont state what he claims they state. Ninetoyadome (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed his edits, but did not comment because they had been reversed and I had hoped that would be the end of it. At the very least he seems to be abusing the infobox with the insertion of Iran given the supporting "source" says nothing close to what the editor is making it out to say. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same with adding Talysh and Lezgins aiding Armenia, the sources added mentioned nothing about them helping Armenia. I have a feeling this user is a sockpuppet of NovaSkola, who would also use dubious sources to make ridiculous claims. In the guba mass grave article novaskola used to claim Armenians raped azeris and his source was a book which never discussed Armenia, azerbaijan or guba. He had also posted a quote where an international community condemned Armenia but the source posted was about Yugoslavia. Ninetoyadome (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This edit, and in particular the phrase Perhaps as incapable of being a good editor in other aspects too, constitutes an egregious personal attack. I'm not in the habit of blocking editors for snide remarks, but there is a line between terse discussion and a personal attack; it's a blurry line, but that comment was a long way to wrong side of it in my opinion. In addition, it appears that you have been conducting a campaign against Epeefleche for a while, and that other admins have discussed this with you previously, including Callanecc. As such, I've blocked you for 48 hours. Once the block expires, I strongly recommend you give Epeefleche some space for a while, and then if you feel compelled to return to addressing problems you perceive in his editing, to do it in a manner which comes across as legitimate editorial discussion rather than something targeted at a particular editor. You may of course use the {{unblock}} template to request another admin review this block. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:50, 11 December 2014 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I agree that my words "incapable of being a good editor" was severe criticism of the quality of Epeefleche's editing. It was not a constructive thing to say and I apologize for making it. However, it was not an unjustified statement to have made under the extended circumstances and the heat of the moment, so it was not an egregious personal attack and not at the level of a blocking offense.
My comment was as a result of being repeatedly targeted with numerous personal attacks by Epeefleche over numerous separate pages. Rather than dealing with legitimate editorial discussion, Epeefleche uses a talk page to do it [7], then does it again [8] (even though I had just asked him to respond to the content issues raised). He does it again here [9] and here too [10]. Here [11], he misuses a page designed for policy advice to paste allegations against me. Then when it is pointed out to him by another editor that here is not the suitable forum for it [12], he deletes the advice. I have NOT been stalking Epeefleche. Where is the proper place for Epeefleche to make allegations of stalking and to get a remedy decision? Is it article talk pages, editors talk pages, DYK pages, policy pages, or ANI? Is an editor who repeatedly uses the wrong pages to make allegations of stalking rather than taking the allegation to ANI acting like a good editor? Epeefleche does not want to take his unfounded stalking allegation to ANI: his aim is just to intimidate me away from one of his pet articles and to use allegations of hounding to close down content discussion on that article.
I am requesting to be unblocked because my "incapable of being a good editor" wording, though over the top, was understandable and had some substance under the circumstances: Epeefleche has been misusing pages and procedures so has not been behaving like a good editor should. I also (since Epeefleche won't do it) want to take this repeated "hounding" allegation to ANI. I want it decided whether it is justified or not, and so that (if it is decide that I have not been doing it), I can get Epeefleche to cease his allegations and start talking content issues.
HJ Mitchell had no justification for claiming "hounding another editor" as a blocking reason.

WP:Hounding has a specific meaning attached to specific actions, it is not just a bad faith insult to be thrown around like confetti on talk pages. I made a legitimate response to a DYN nomination noticeboard post, a nomination that randomly caught my eye (because of its extraordinary DYK claim) after looking at the Narekavank nomination (I have, as my edit history shows, an interest in Armenian and Turkish subjects and so try to follow edits by Yerevantsi who shares this interest). I never even knew it was Epeefleche who made the nomination until he made his usual stalking allegation [13] to intimidate me away. My edits and points were on-topic and intended to improve the article, were not tendentiousness or disruptive, and were properly presented and argued (allowing for Epeefleche attempts from the very outset to derail them by making hounding accusations): [14],[15],[16]. As far as I know I have had no contact with anything Epeefleche has edited for at least 7 weeks, and Epeefleche is an editor who edits 1000s of articles. So where is the stalking? Where has it been decided I have been hounding anyone? Where has accusations and evidence been properly presented in an appropriate place? Where have I had the chance to defend myself? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk

) 8:10 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)

Decline reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked because my "incapable of being a good editor" wording had some substance under the circumstances. Actually, it was very lacking in substance and hyperbolic. That your unblock request was immediately followed by a series of diffs attempting to cast Epeefleche in a bad light does not convince me that you understand why you were blocked, nor does it convince me that you would refrain from following Epeefleche or someone else's edits if you were unblocked early. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:16, 11 December 2014 (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.

Here is the immediate result of the above block: Epeefleche gloating on his talk page [17], Epeefleche making yet another off-topic post on the article talk page [18] as a way of avoiding addressing the legitimate content issues raised, Epeefleche making yet another off-topic post on the DYK nomination page [19] as a way of avoiding addressing the legitimate content issues raised, Epeefleche making yet another off-topic post on a policy page[20] even though he had been advised earlier he was off-topic, Epeefleche ignoring Wikipedia procedures by removing a legitimately placed and properly explained npov tag [21] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments. Quite simply - we don't change another user's comments. There are exceptions listed, but they are few. Simple duplication or redundancy are not reason for removal or modification. Vsmith (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what "users comments" were changed by me that are not listed in the exceptions? If an editor creates a talk page section to discuss an issue, and a pre-existing section created to discuss that exact same issue is already there, and is located directly above that more recently created section, only a person seeking to create drama where there is none would object to the two sections being merged. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems it was not a complete duplicate and not added twice in error by the same user. Drama resulted from your changing/merging. No interest in arguing details of all that, just avoid such in the future. Vsmith (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing will be avoided in the future because there is nothing needed to be avoided. The sections had identical subjects and were covering identical issues and were created within several minutes of each other, so merging them was entirely correct. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Combative editor: WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:DE and WP:BLP concerns. Thank you. Abecedare (talk) 23:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 00:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reasons to appeal - but I won't waste my time appealing it since that would give administrators the delusion that I respect them and would contribute to the sense of authority that appeals give them. If all politicians are corrupt, the only solution is for everyone not to vote. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that as a sign you won't be needing your talk page then. You can proceed to

WP:UTRS if you change your mind. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 00:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Obviously I won't need it for a week. I don't use my talk page to express how wonderful I think I am, or how many awards or stars I've got, or as some sort of facebook substitute, or any of the other sorts of things administrators do with their talk pages. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love the reasoning you use though - commenting on something posted on MY talk page and saying I won't appeal amounts to a misuse of MY talk page. I'd rather "misuse" than waste time appealing. I note your own page has the usual "This user is fallible and encourages other admins to be bold in reverting their admin actions". Cite me some examples of this ever happening? Ever happening with any admin decision? One in 10,000 times maybe it might (exhibiting an extreme amount of (insincere) groveling, (insincere) penitence, and an (insincere) desire to take advice from ones betters (i.e. administrators) seems to work sometimes - ironically those are the very ones whose blocks are usually justified). That is why it would be a waste of my time. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, I seem to have just reblocked you without actually making the desired change! I have now rectified this. But I'll humor you all the same. My admin actions have only been boldly overturned by others maybe two or three times ever. Never has it proven to be the right call. On my part, I try to be courteous and respect the decisions any other users make, but if I see a bad call being made, I'll correct it without hesitation, even if it involves overturning an administrative action. But that's just me. I am the wisest and most powerful admin, after all, so most people generally don't mess with me. (Calm down, it was a joke.) Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 01:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Malatya#Fact_tags about your constantly disruptive edits. --92slim (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is your deletion of citation required tags that is disruptive. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing - read point 3. --92slim (talk) 02:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion of Armenian propaganda and nationalist myths is disruptive editing, deletion of well-known dates is disruptive editing, use of weasel words is disruptive editing - all that covers your edits. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not what I have done. I have just removed your tags, because they were disruptive. --92slim (talk) 03:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take your bad faith and your ignorance (of both the subject and of Wikipedia rules of behavior) to the article's talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoe, the nicer you are the more you are likely to be believed. Rule #1! Also, this was brought before the public at ANI, of course. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I now know about his ANI post, not that 92slim informed me of this (yet another disregarding by this editor of proper editing procedures). Why should truth have to act polite? Truth should have no need to be - it is untruth that uses politeness and game-playing as a mask for its true nature. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do "truth" here--we do rhetoric, or "truthiness" at best. :) Drmies (talk) 04:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why don't you give up quarrelling with those nasty fanatics and do some positive stuff? Begin with Draft:Mihran Apikyan for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.239.72.186 (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not refactor talk pages again. You have been combative and referred to others' comments as vandalism which is incorrect. Too much edit-warring, too much heat and not enough light.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

92slim has repeatedly posted personal insults against me on talk pages. And when those insults were deleted he has reposted them. I am completely within my right to remove such insults, and such removals are in agreement with Wikipedia rules. Talk pages are not forums to post insults against other editors - and when such off-topic offensive content has been deleted by the person they were addressed to [22], it IS VANDALISM to reinsert them again like he did here [23], and again [24], and again [25], and again [26]! And this is probably him too: [27]. 92slim has also been repeatedly warned about attacking me by making allegations and insinuations of sockpuppetry. [28] Despite such warnings he did it again here [29]. I deleted it [30] because the post was a personal attack, there is no argument that could claim otherwise. It was also off topic, again no argument could claim otherwise. Under both those criteria it was correct for me to delete the post. The anon IP posts I deleted at the same time were deleted for BLP reasons: they contained racist insults. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not

talk) 23:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not vandalism and was already handled correctly. This was uncalled for. And this is additional refactoring with "not a forum and not a platform to insult or display your personal brand of stupidity" as an edit summary. You have persistently treated

Wikipedia as a battleground and your "rights" to remove can now be considered rescinded. You continue to display faulty judgment on what is vandalism or not a forum. The net effect is combative and disruptive.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Berean Hunter, please explain to me why you are stating that this material [31] does not fail

WP:TPNO. Or are you asserting that the restoration of off-topic posts is helpful rather than unhelpful? Or are you asserting that a rambling propaganda-filled post titled "so-called Armenian Genocide" was a valid Armenian Genocide talk page contribution? You claim "This was uncalled for". But it WAS called for - it was a fair comment under the circumstances. I had already carefully explained to 92slim that there were no sources supporting his Gallipoli connection assertion content, and that two different dates cannot "coincide" because they are two different dates! 92slim responds with an dismissive insult, "Read above, rinse and repeat" [[35]], and, without giving any justification or legitimate response to my points, puts the same unsupported content and clearly stupid wording right back into the article [36]. Regardless of what you think, "Not a forum and not a platform to insult or display your personal brand of stupidity" is a correct and appropriate edit summery. The deleted posts [37] were using the talk page as a forum and were presenting the stupid opinion that Akcam (an ethnic Kurd) is actually Armenian, with all the racist insult that that implies (in Turkey, to state or imply that a person is "Armenian" is intended as an insult). And of course there was 92slim making yet another of his harassment sockpuppet insinuations. You knew he was warned against doing this, yet you have actually restored his post! With an edit like that, I am not surprised that you sarcastically and shamelessly place the word rights in inverted commas. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Since my "claim is deliberately deceptive and weasel-worded" and "Regardless of what you think..." are stated above it tells me that I won't be able to really help you because you are displaying

genre warriors.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

You are the one who is not hearing, not taking note of A SINGLE THING I WROTE ABOVE, not giving a legitimate response to any of my points. Shame on you and your administrator arrogance. Your final comment reveals you are a racist little cunt too, it seems. Doublethink, like blindness and shamelessness, is also a administrator trait - but it takes a high degree of doublethink to restore racist material, to block the person who removed it, and to insinuate with your filth-filled mouth that it is actually I who am the racist. I am not, neither am I a Turk or an Armenian or an American or indeed a member of any race (since race seems so important to you) who has things to hide on Wikipedia. Your spa account allegation is yet another deliberately deceptive lie, but I love how you weasily wikilink it, as if linking makes the allegation true! You sure know how to play the game - and, as for your unblock appeal suggestion I know that in the Wikipedia cult administrators are considered infallible. Good thing I suppose that clerks aren't, but that is only because infallibility needs to be very selective if it is to be maintained and the fallible need to know their place. I was actually devastated that you did not block me for being a spa Turkish nationalist. I could have dined on that story for years! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[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 why you should be unblocked, you should read the

unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

 User:Berean Hunter (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Alexis Ivanov (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful man your tendencies to be blocked might make you blocked in the future, a warning from a friend, to tread lightly Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just read your message

Don't have it, and I actually don't recall having seen it. But I must have sometime, since I have cited an actual page number. I am not encouraged by its title though: "Anatolia" is a political term, not geographical, "Caucasus" is a geographical term. To place the two together in a title and make out that they are equivalent is wrong. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. A useful reminder. He gave me some info about officially sanctioned and enforced censorship on Wikipedia. It concerned the deletion of content in an article and retention of false content on the grounds that a gagging order was in place against British media. The content was still censored from the Wikipedia article even after newspapers in Britain had decided to ignore the ban and publish the info. Of course his conflict with some core values and head honchos of Wikipedia had nothing at all to do with his permaban. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen that back in April (this year) some useful text was repeatedly added and then removed. Some of the editors involved seem quite experienced but it this article still needs a lot of help. Is there anywhere to go to get more assistance, I just don't have time? Testbed (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

replied on your talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the comment, sorry for the delay, this is my first time back in weeks, I have just no time for editing at the moment - never mind for discussion, although I wish I did - so was just trying to send out an alert.

Re your

Gurdjieff

question, I don't remember tagging but I do remember trying to draw attention to a whole lot of articles which seem to take nonsense at face value. Again just no time to tackle this, particularly as it will involve battles with editors with all the time in the world and a deep investment in said nonsense.

My early and very wearisome editing experiences (daring to suggest that sex abuse took place in the boy scouts got me labelled a troll by editors who, guess what, turned out to be part of a ring of boy scout editors) has left me pretty jaded about trying to take on vested interests. It's an interesting conundrum for Wikipedia though: the time poor may have access to the best sources but not have the time to edit. Whereas those with a loyalty to their organisation / gang / whatever which exceeds their loyalty to the encyclopaedia may be time rich, better organised, able to mobilse supporters and therefore well placed to win edit wars.

Sorry not to be more helpful. I only came back to point out a problem on another page. Thank you for your time. Testbed (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield, your message

I don't know how to do bullet points but I have gone and divided the text up into smaller paragraphs. If you want to add bullet points it is OK by me. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2015 (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 Arbitration Committee has authorised

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, 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 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.

Kautilya3 (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the "Don't hesitate to contact me" bit to mean contact Callanecc, since you have copypasted this notification from the one that was posted on your talk page by Callanecc back in June. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, the flag with the Seljuq eagle is of course not the flag of the assembly, in fact, the assembly doesn't have a flag, it has a logo. However, the assembly "declared" the official flag. I can see that you sir don't feel much of a love for Turks. Although, if you read the latest press release (somehow) of the Syrian Turkmen Assembly which is the umbrella organization of all the Turkmen movements in Syria and the official governing body of Syrian Turkmen (Like PYD of the Kurds - for you to understand better), it is stated that the flag will be the official flag of Syrian Turkmen to put an end to the vague use of Turkmen flag, representing the 3 million Syrian Turkmen population. Meanwhile, the other 2 flags may be continued to use on battlefields and protests, the official flag for diplomatical meetings, conferences, conventions, etc. will be the one which is declared as official. This information has also been provided at the talk page and the flag has been added to the article. Thank you.

The MHP-backed "assembly" in Turkey can declare whatever it wants, but it is irrelevant for this issue. This article is about an ethnic group in Syria. Your "assembly" does not have ownership of an ethnicity and it does not have the status of a state with an ability to have a flag. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please be informed that I have opened a dispute at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -Dominator1453 (talk) 10:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tiptoethrutheminefield As per the discussion at [38] , [39] the OMICS Publishing Group article should be rewritten. Can you all please intervene and support the wiki neutrality as per the discussion. Most of the editors were suggested to re-write the article but it was not happened. 61.16.142.82 (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Total Disruptor of Wikipedia Award
	Be careful what you wish for: by the power vested in me, the Honorable William J. Le Petomane, I hereby award you this award. Drmies (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:) I'll wear it with pride - though until it is bestowed personally by Jimmy Wales it cannot be said to be an award that is unquestionably justified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree absolutely, but really, did you know that there was a machine called "disruptor"? Drmies (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you were the one who got a "barnstar". It looks like one of them vortex mixers we use in the lab, but apparently it is a distinct cell disruptor. Learned something new there! - HyperGaruda (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So that's what it is! I thought Disruptors were just from Star Trek. Drmies put some effort into this, and corrected my spelling! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not on purpose: I think I used an "o" because it has a sort of Eastern European bureaucratic flavor to it (I'm a child of the Cold War)--you know, in the way "controller" becomes really sinister in the Prong song. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the discussion is not an honest discussion about an ongoing content issue, it's a single editor trying to

I will assume good faith (something you don't seem to be doing with that "single editor") and hope that "And possibly others too" is not a threat against me. You may not consider it to be an "honest discussion about an ongoing content issue". You may wish to bury and salt the earth on a discussion thread by closing it and collapsing it. However I think this is NOT an appropriate way to treat what I consider to be a discussion on a legitimate content issue raised legitimately by an editor. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tiptoethrutheminefield, it appears as if you are interested in edits by EtienneDolet and Dr. K. It certainly seems as if you've followed K to that Elgin article, and that your edits there and on the talk page are intended to get a rise out of him. The best way to remove that impression is by not giving any one any opportunity get such an impression. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is I have and will continue to edit any article related to archeology, architecture, and history, particularly any related to the Near East, regardless of whether Dr.K or similar think their pomposity is being pricked. His revert that restored dozens of clearly unacceptable words and phrases [40] onto the Elgin Marbles article was done out of nothing more than spite and should be considered as harassment. What else could it be considered to be except harassment? Why have you not placed a warning about this onto Dr.K's talk page? His revert meant he took ownership of those unacceptable words, and his edit summary suggested he considered himself somewhat of a long-term owner of that article (suggesting he was quite happy to have had those words there) - all this should lead to serious questions about his editing ability and his priorities on Wikipedia. My Elgin Marbles talk page post was intended to close down completely any chance of Dr.K continuing with his edit warring - it was directed to Dr.K by name because no other editor would reasonably have wanted those unsuitable words and phrases restored. Can you point out an error in any of the word changes I made to Elgin Marbles, or can you point out an error I made on the talk page post that explained those deletions after they were reverted? Since the making of this post here could carry with it the implication that there was something wrong with my edits, I would like you to either point out any content errors I added to the article, or say that there were no content errors added and that actually my edit substantially improved the article. And in particular please explain and justify your assertion that this edit [41] was "intended to get a rise out of him". Or apologize for making that assertion and withdraw it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NB, a glance at Dr.K's edit history reveals an extraordinary large number of complaints raised against other editors, and an extraordinary large number of threatening "disruptive editing" and "vandalism" warnings placed on editors' pages. I am disappointed that you are encouraging this behavior. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's just an extraordinary coincidence that you never edited that article before, and that your first edit is to revert Dr. K. Extraordinary. Trying to pick a fight with me is not going to be of much help. Drmies (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an extraordinary coincidence. You are making up rules as you go along. I again request you to explain and justify your assertion that an edit that removed wording that Wikipedia guidelines say were inadmissible, a removal which did not revert anything done by Dr.K and which had no connection to any edits Dr.K had made to the article, was done because I "intended to get a rise out of" Dr.K. Either do that, or apologize and withdraw the accusation as being unfounded. If you will do neither I will take the matter to the appropriate administrators' noticeboard. Maybe your initial post here was ill-thought out and you did not realize the whole meaning of your words. However, you made an as clear as daylight accusation of bad faith editing on my part, editing done to harass. I cannot accept that accusation, or just let it pass, because to leave it sitting here unopposed invites its inevitable later use by Dr.K or others. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hounding does not require reverting; what it does require is "an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor". And I see that apparent aim in your edits on Talk:Londinium (you have never edited the article) and Hagia Sophia (ditto), edits made just after Dr. K. edited those articles. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Drmies quotes selectively from Wikipedia policy in order to maintain his delusion that there is Wikipedia policy to support his action. The sentence preceding the one which he has quoted defines the means of that "apparent aim": edits done "in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work". Drmies has not (because he cannot) produce even a single diff showing such edits. Nor can he produce any diffs indicating the "tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior" requirements. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• My apology for saying "revert" when I should have said "edit". Doesn't alter the basic facts. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one fact - the fact that I edited an article because I looked at Dr.K's edit history to find that article. Your still to be recanted "fact" that the edit you had called a revert involved content added by Dr.K and was thus made to "get a rise" from Dr.K is equally erroneous. The edit had no connection to any content added or removed by Dr.K. There are no other facts, just your opinion based on nothing that editing an article because I looked at an editor's edit history equals hounding. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked for doing something that is not a blockable offense, something which is expressly allowed under Wikipedia policy, and which is not Wikihounding under Wikipedia policy guidelines. From Wikipedia:Harassment#What_harassment_is_not: However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user. Therefore, it must be emphasized that one editor warning another for disruption or incivility is not harassment if the claims are presented civilly, made in good faith, and in an attempt to resolve a dispute instead of escalating one.
Neither is tracking a user's contributions for policy violations (see above); the contribution logs exist for editorial and behavioral oversight. Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns, and, if necessary, to revert their edits. Unwarranted resistance to such efforts may be a sign of ownership behavior and lead to sanctions. I have not "harrassed" anyone under any of the definitions provided on Wikipedia:Harassment. I have edited articles that Dr.K has edited. That is not harrassment according to Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. My edits have been presented civily, and were all made in good faith. The edits did not involve any controversial content edits, they are currently stable, nor were any of them part of any ongoing edit war, and Dr.K has not raised any complaint. Again, all this indicates they were not harrassment according to Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. The "a note" post by Drmies (events now show that what he really meant was "a warning") is full of inaccuracies. Drmies wrote "your first edit (to Elgin Marbles) is to revert Dr. K" - but that edit [42] did not revert anything, was not controversial, and did not remove any content that had been added by Dr.K! All the edit did was to replace a number of words which are deemed unacceptable on Wikipedia. When it was reverted, I gave the reason for making the edit on the talk page [43]. Drmies labeled that explanation an "attempt to get a rise out of him (Dr.K)"! Yet all it did was explain the reasons for the edit, an explanation that Dr.K appears to have accepted (the reworded words remain reworded, and several similar edits I made later were not challenged). Drmies accuses me of editing "Talk:Londinium and Hagia Sophia, edits made just after Dr. K. edited those articles". But what policy offense is breached in doing that? He accuses me of causing "irritation, annoyance or distress" by doing this. In what way could the three edits I made on them [44] [45] [46], or the edits mentioned earlier, in any reasonable way be held to have done that, or to have had an intent to do that, to cause ""irritation, annoyance or distress". Dr.K edits some of the same sort of articles I edit. I went to those two articles because I looked at Dr.K's edit history and I saw a lot of recent editing and reverting going on in those articles, articles which also correspond to my fields of knowledge. So I went to have a look at the articles. There is nothing wrong in doing this! Where on Wikipedia does it say doing this is forbidden? On the contrary it is expressly allowed, as in "Editors do not own their edits, or any other article content, and any other editor has a right to track their editing patterns". There are about 20 to 30 editors who edit articles in the areas I am interested in and whose recent edit history I often look at to see what is ongoing, (as well as regularly looking at my own edit history to remind me what I have done). Drmies, however, is claiming that just looking at another editor's edit history and using it to find articles to edit equates to hounding (see his post below, where he says "I think that is pretty clear evidence of your following Dr. K.'s edits and then editing the article (or the associated talk page)"), and he has blocked me on that basis alone. There is nothing else: no questions raised about the accuracy or the content value of the edits, no incivility, no tendentiousness or personal attacks or other disruptive behavior, no edit warring, no deleting of the supposedly hounded editor's additions, in fact there is an absence of any of the criteria required to support an accusation of hounding, far less a block for hounding. There is not even a complaint from the supposedly hounded editor. No Wikipedia policy exists to justify this extreme viewpoint held by Drmies or support this block he has imposed. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have an extensive history, over the course of years, of personal attacks, harassment, and a battleground approach to anyone you disagree with. You have repeatedly been blocked for those faults. You never show any awareness of the problem, and deny aspects of your own behaviour which must be glaringly obvious to anyone who looks at the relevant history. Your only response to anyone criticising your aggressive behaviour is more aggression, whether taking the form of walls of text ranting on about how innocent you are and how evil others are, the form of removing comments with snide and aggressive edit summaries, or whatever. The case for which you have been blocked this time is yet another example of the same, and your response to the block on this page is another example of the same. When checking your editing history in order to assess this unblock request, I found that the occasions when you have been blocked are the tip of the iceberg, with many other examples of your inability to act towards other editors with whom you have disagreements in a civil and cooperative way, and your persistent battleground approach. I do get the impression that you genuinely cannot see the nature of what you are doing, and that no matter how many different editors point out to you how your behaviour looks to them, you seem to really persist in honestly thinking that your own perception is the only one which is "correct", and everyone else is suffering from some sort of mass hallucination in seeing aggression and harassment which is not there. However, sincerely believing that you are not doing what everyone else can see you are doing does not make it all right. Considering the extent of the problems, and the fact that numerous short-term blocks over the years have failed to deter you, the only aspect of this block which might reasonably be reconsidered is that it is for such a short time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk) 12:09, 11 February 2016 (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.

???? What personal attacks? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, standard template: sorry. There's no standardized block template for hounding. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Three edits that I think exemplify the problem here: this edit to Elgin Marbles, Tiptoe's first, right after Dr. K. makes a few edits. This comment is made on the talk page of an editor who had just been warned by Dr. K. about edit warring and removing verified information on an article you've never edited, and then you left a note on Talk:Londinium. And this edit on Hagia Sophia, your first in that article, again comes right after Dr. K. edited it. I think that is pretty clear evidence of your following Dr. K.'s edits and then editing the article (or the associated talk page). I believe User:Damianmx has suffered similar hounding from you. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretty clear evidence" of what? I have already said that the reason I went to those articles is because I looked at Dr.K's edit history, saw them there, and saw they were subjects in my field of interest. It is clearly explained in the Wikipedia guidelines I have cited that there is nothing wrong in doing this and that it is NOT hounding. Dr.K has edited thousands of articles, probably several hundred over the last couple of weeks. How many of the latter have I also visited that I had not been to before? Three or four, maybe five tops? How many of the edits made on those four or five articles involved altering content added or changed by Dr.K? None, except for one revert made to restore an edit I made, a revert that I also explained on the article's talk page. I do not know if it is possible to compile a list of articles that both I and Dr.K have edited. If it were, I suspect it would contain several hundred articles with mostly completely unconnected editing - and on only one occasion do I recall having any sustained content disagreement with Dr.K. Why are you persisting in making up rules, claiming that something is "hounding" when it is not? Dr.K wanted that Londinium editor blocked as a vandal [47], however he was not blocked but warned and since I know the subject I know that what the editor wanted to add is factually correct (but needs sources). So I advised him [48] of the correct course he should be taking to avoid fruitless edit warring and an inevitable block. It is unbelievable that Drmies is citing as support for a block an example of giving helpful advice intended to stop some edit warring, prevent an editor being blocked, and improve an article! I even cited a possible source in the article's talk page. I suppose I should consider it lucky I did not have access to that source - if I had it I might have added it and its 25,000-30,000 population figure into the article, and made more editing diff evidence for Drmies to claim as "hounding". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I of course did not have the smallest expectation that the appeal would be successful: Wikipedia administrator solidarity is even tighter that doctor solidarity. However, given that his fellow admin has declined to cite even one diff to prove this block follows Wikipedia policy, perhaps JamesBWatson (since he seems so sure of himself) will cite one. Cite even a single example of "personal attacks, harassment, and a battleground approach" that he claims are "glaringly obvious" and made the block justified. If they are that "glaringly obvious" it should not be that hard to answer, specially since I already cited all of them within the appeal and asked what was wrong with them. JamesBWatson displays an attitude of utter contempt towards me by failing to respond to any of the points I made or issues I raised in the appeal. JamesBWatson is right about one thing - I do not accept the allegation. I cannot change my editing behaviour in any way because neither he or Drmies have been able to point out ANY ACTUAL EDITING that was wrong. Where is the "personal attack", where are the diffs showing it? Where is the "harassment", where are the diffs showing it? Where is the "battleground", where are the diffs showing it? Is Drmies or JamesBWatson stating that following the editing history of another user is forbidden, and if so, will they point out the Wikipedia policy that says this? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you the official on guard to defend bloody terrorist organizations like PKK? No surprise they block you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.239.20.17 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this, and its edit summary, as an example of an editor who supports the actions of Drmies and JamesBWatson. It may not be support they would welcome, but they get the sort of supporters their decisions generate. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tiptoe,

I read somewhere that you wrote an essay regarding the EEML case. I'm curious about it. Can you send it to me?

Sorry, I don't know where it is now or if it still exists at all (I've gone through about 5 or 6 computers and a dozen or so hard disk upgrades since then, so the file has got lost or is gone). All the core material will still be on Wikipedia though - the essay was just summarizing the events and processes, and asking a few unasked questions. Like, for example, in the mailing list some of the conspirators hint they are in communication with an unnamed person who will help them get Russavia permanently banned. A certain administrator (who, a few days before the EEML list went public, gave Russavia a permanent ban, and whose user page stated that he never replies to emails sent by editors) replied on his page to an email he said he had received from an individual who shortly afterwards was revealed to be one of the EEML conspirators. The conspirator later said he had not kept a copy of that email and could not remember anything specific about its contents. Yet none of the investigations enquired about the credibility of that unlikely claim, or asked that administrator about it. What struck me was the extent of the victim blaming - that it was actually Russavia's fault for leading so many editors astray by forcing them to form a conspiracy to manipulate Wikipedia procedures. Years later that seems to have ended up being the final conclusion of administrators because Russavia is permanently banned and all the conspirators are free of any restrictions and allowed to edit the very same articles and subjects they had been convicted of conspiring to manipulate. The only on-record comment about the EEML case made by Jimmy Wales was "this has nothing to do with me". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting Tiptoe. Thanks for sharing. Come to think of it, I wonder if the essay could've been helpful for a recent ArbCom case I filed. Anyways, see you around.

Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Would only have been useful to indicate the futility of bringing things to ArbCom I think! Volunteer Marek enjoys high level protection. He goes around criticizing the editing history of others, but nobody is allowed to mention his own extremely disreputable past, and I noticed a post he made recently in which he actually stated that it was blemish free! ("I am neither emotionally invested nor is there anything wrong with my editing history, which is far far far more extensive and longer than yours. I've been here for ten years and have tens of thousands of edits." [49]) Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks Tiptoe!

Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

No need to search and find that essay, I think you rewrote it! :) Just kidding Tiptoe!

Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

"Would only have been useful to indicate the futility of bringing things to ArbCom I think!" - Sheesh, you're right. And what was I thinking?

Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I wish I wasn't right. Maybe it would have been better to have gone through Volunteer Marek edits and picked out all the examples of aggressive edits, the number of reverts, or talk page edits and edit summaries that attacked other editors (even his ArbCom "defense" is full of personal attacks - he is perfect, everyone else is wrong), or edits where he boasted about how long established and blemish free he was, rather than just showing tag teaming. Part of the reasons for his sanctions being lifted was the claim that he was now making non-controversial edits and doing them non-aggressively. Far worse tag teaming was going on before the mailing list became public, and nothing was done about that. The mailing list's public existence forced administrators to be seen to act, but I bet they would always have done nothing if it hadn't been leaked. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you gonna actually tell us which one was your former account or just keep on talking about me behind my back as if you were somehow "uninvolved"? I'm... sort of, almost, curious. Particularly if you're one of those that got sanctioned (you're right about one thing - a lot more "anti-EEML" people ended up getting sanction than the EEML people. And quite rightly too. The list was sort of stupid and when it got leaked it turned into an arbcom case but it also brought to attention of various admins A LOT of super sketchy behavior that the people on the list were trying to deal with) You might also consider at some point that your interpretation and understanding of both that case and my edits in general is a bit skewed, seeing as how it seems lots of different people disagree with you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All you have done is further confirm what I have written. You are showing that you think you basically did nothing wrong during the EEML days, which raises questions about the lifting of your topic ban sanction because its lifting required from you an acceptance that the sanction was justified and an alteration of your editing style. You also confirm my assertion that the standpoint of administrators from the very outset, to the EEML case's conclusion, to the lifting of sanctions from the sanctioned, and continuing on from then up to the current date was that of victim blaming. I wish I had been a member of that list, because maybe then I would know what the content of the mysterious email was, or who the unidentified administrator contact was, the person who was talked about as being asked to give the final coup de grâce to Russavia. Only you really know if your friends in high places are genuine allies sharing your editing aims, or just allies of convenience to maintain the myth that the EEML case was of no importance, revealed no fundamental flaws in Wikipedia, and is long over (typified by the Jimmy Wales "nothing to do with me" dismissal). The list's existence is actually a sort of red herring. Being a member of the list was not punishable: there were no sanctions against any list members for just being a member of the list, or even for being an active poster on the list. What the list did was show visible edits on Wikipedia as the tip of an iceberg - the list showed the underwater part of it, revealing its whole form and also revealing core problems within Wikipedia. But I wasn't a member, I wasn't editing Wikipedia back then, and I am uninvolved under Wikipedia terminology because I do not recall reversing edits you have made, and writing an off-Wikipedia essay ages ago that was seen by almost nobody is not involvement. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that all belonged to another essay, WP:Dead horse, but perhaps was mistaken since people continue bringing this back. There was a very similar case on ruwiki and approximately at the same time. In that case, the person who created mailing list was the same person who later "leaked" it to Arbcom on ruwiki. So, that was actually done on purpose: to lure unsuspected people to the list and have them banned. That followed logic of the famous Operation Trust. Was it something similar here? You may call me paranoid, but I think it actually was, except that it was not so simple. This is one of the reasons I never communicate off-wiki with any participants of the project. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that the way editors on ru Wikipedia dealt with allegations of article bias, source manipulations, editing cabals, and so on, was generally admirable - they (perhaps because they were coming from a culture with a long history of state manipulation of truth) were far more appreciative of how Wikipedia can be exploited as a propaganda tool, and were far more willing to confront the problem. I think that some of the core Wikipedia principles were worked out on RU Wikipedia. But someone who edited there back then would know more about that than me. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit on ruwiki, but looked a few times what is going on there. That was actually much worse than here, with claims that one admin edited while drunk and gave up their tools to someone else who took the entire ruwiki over, claims who slept who whom in the "cabal" and other things like that. But the current arbitration request by EtienneDolet is indeed very nasty. Hence I am not going to be around (or at least not going to be very active) given that my account was outed long time ago. Poor VM. You guys will eat him alive. My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They might if they don't choke first. Anyway, TtttM, there was no "mysterious contact administrator". Generally, I really have no idea of what you're going on about. If it is indeed true that you weren't on Wikipedia back then, then consider that you are clearly obsessed with a six year old ArbCom case and your fanatical belief that it was decided "wrongly". So you show up here, six years later on this mission to right great (imagined) wrongs on the basis of some crazy conspiracy theories you've cooked up. That's not just beating a dead horse. That's like digging up a body of a long deceased but unrelated and innocent donkey and trying to smash its poor body into smithereens. There are so many more productive and intellectually satisfying pursuits out there that you could be obsessed about. Good luck.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really want me to go through the leaked list? But I'll do it if you do want a direct quote. The "mysterious contact administrator" is, from memory, an unnamed Wikipedia editor (i.e. not a list member) that one of the list members (not you) says he is in contact with regarding the list's collective goal to get Russavia blocked. The contact is not mentioned by that list member as being an administrator - but only an administrator has blocking powers. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tiptoethrutheminefield. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

Requests for extensions of the word limit may be made either in your statement or by email to the Committee through this link or arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org if email is not available through your account.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry, I had not realized that. But to guide me does this 500 words mean 500 words in total, or 500 maximum per individual response (since I have made two such responses in addition to the main post). I see now on the main page the words "statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words" - but it is not clear to me if this means all statements when added together together cannot exceed 500 words. Is there a more detailed policy link for guidance? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have cut the main response down to 645 words, will try to cut it further asap. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added your name due to your clarity and NPOV stance [50]. Please read my objections to VM at pages end SaintAviator lets talk 03:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 
mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution
.

The 
guide to formal mediation
, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 March 2016.

This may interest you. Wikicology, who you discussed here in September 2014, has continued his trail of destruction across the project, except this time he was meddling around with articles about poison gas, in a highly dangerous way (see e.g. this cleanup). A site ban is being discussed again. Peter Damian (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have noticed that you also commented on ANI regarding the discussion about "Kurdish women". I have opened a new section regarding it on the talk page of the article. You can involve. Sincerely. 46.221.207.35 (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page of what article? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the talk page-the last section.

Hi,

I thought you ought to know that the barnstar you received was left by an impostor, not by me. Adam9007 (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked into it and saw that. Wouldn't mind getting a real barnstar though! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know some editors have actually accepted the barnstar despite knowing about the impersonation. Adam9007 (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that a fake Rolex is better than no Rolex perhaps! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - there is this info from the government of Karabakh that might be helpful. I can also check a couple of Soviet references to see what they have. --RaffiKojian (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, sorry, I don't know about this other than the link I have provided is an official tourism site of Karabakh, so I would imagine it would be the correct name, at least currently. I will keep this question in mind when reading up on things and talking to people who might know more. --RaffiKojian (talk) 06:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS - sorry, I noticed the discussion on the inclusion of Aghet in the Armenian Genocide lede, and I voiced my opposition for the reasons I mentioned (I've never seen or heard it used except for the German documentary title). It might be interesting in a section discussing other things the genocide has been called, but not in the lede. But anyway, we should keep that discussion there. --RaffiKojian (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have presented 16 sources exhibiting its use, so personal ignorance of the fact of its use is not a reason to exclude that fact of its use (if it were, there would be precious little on this encyclopedia!). Wikipedia content is based on sources, intelligently used. Nor can Wikipedia content be decided on by opinion pieces in select sources. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw some of your sources in the talk page. It's not to say that it's never used - it's to say that it's rarely used. 16 sources is a very small fraction that the term Armenian Genocide gets, and even a small fraction of medz yeghern I'm fairly certain. It does look like the term is known a little more in Germany/France, but still I don't even think 1% of Armenians have ever used the word aghet in reference to the genocide. I'm just trying to put it into perspective, because I do think the lede should be focused on giving a very brief and broad explanation of the genocide, rather than a more specialized and detailed one. --RaffiKojian (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "Armenian Genocide" gets into 99% or more of the sources. The content addition discussion was not about that, it was about including Aghet amongst the alternative terms and giving it parity with those other terms based on the number of sources for it. Medz yeghern gets minimal mention in books, less than Aghet, and its "Great Crime" translation even less. Try to find 16 sources for the latter, and about all you'll find are a some toadying stuff written by Turks who want to get into the fashionable and (they hope) lucrative field of "reconciliation" and who get their info from recent opinion-piece articles they find in Armenian press. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen this junk:

I thought this discussion might interest you, if you wanted to weigh in. --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your edit at Alexander Prokhorenko, in regards to him being described as a Russian "Rambo". Evidently, this article was put into a queue for DYK prior to your edit. [51] I agree with you about the use of this cultural reference. It's a catchy title for a newspaper, but not encyclopedic, and I don't feel that it is respectful, which is "my" main objection. I thought you might want to know. Best...Tribe of Tiger (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I later came across a Russian source that referred to him being called that by some online Western media sources - so while the epithet does exist for him, it is not a name that anyone who knew him when alive would ever have used in reference to him, nor, does it seem to have been used by anyone in the country of the uniform he was wearing. And a few Western media sources is not enough to establish the claimed "popular culture" status. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to further clutter the AN/I with our rumblings and it's not relevant there anyway, but I have to admit I'm confused by your last comment. What I said, was just an honest observation based on my, admittedly limited, experience. Are you saying there can be no bias against a race in Wikipedia, or that merely noting that there are people who seem to be biased is offensive? I'm asking because I want to understand, what did you mean by "Those articles should have informed you enough for you to realize how disturbingly wrong (and actually offensive) that "to cast Turks in the worst possible light" opinion is" which I genuinely didn't understand. Regards.Darwinian Ape ^talk 03:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For "honest observation" some might say "pov bias". But I was saying I don't think pov-bias would be correct, it is just an ill-informed observation derived from reading badly written Wikipedia articles. The article in question, Turkish–Armenian War, is currently full of content derived from Turkish propaganda sources. For example, note the large number of references derived from supposedly "Armenian" sources in the article, they suggest an unbiased article. However, in reality, all the content comes from Turkish sources - they have cherry-picked content from other sources, academically acceptable sources, but have discarded any content from them that is off-message. This is a well-known and well-written about technique used in sources sponsored or commissioned by the Turkish State. You, as a newcomer, do not know this. It is carefully crafted propaganda designed to appeal to just such as you: those that don't know the subject in depth and want to be reasonable. Have you not read the quote I gave that many scholars consider the invasion to be a continuation of the Armenian Genocide. Are you implying that the Armenian Genocide is all about painting Turks in a "bad light"? That is the offensiveness many will find within your observation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am a major proponent of academic-POV, so I will always be swayed by a consensus of peer reviewed academic sources. Although History is not a positive science and depends more on fallible evidence and is more subject to feeling based argumentation,(hence my dislike of the subject) I would have no problem whatsoever with an argument based on these kind of quality sources. Perhaps I was vague when I said there seems to be a bias in Turkish related articles, but I was trying to avoid pointing fingers. It was not limited to Armenian-Turkish topic area and I didn't even have the "Armenian genocide" in mind when I said it. (by the way I really don't like the argument that an intellectual discussion, however contentious or sad the topic may be, is offensive, I think no topic should be exempt from scrutiny and reasoned, evidence based discussion. Fringe ideas best rebuked by shedding light on them)

But to be honest I didn't see much of a source oriented discussion in the

Turkish-Armenian War article.(Apart from your first analysis of some scholarly sources, which was not definitive.) When I saw this move request I was intrigued because I didn't think the events could be considered an invasion, since the territory never officially belonged to Armenia.(Wilsonian argument aside) The commonname search too, revealed that it was mostly referred to as "Turkish Armenian War." I still don't see any argument as to why "Turkish invasion of Armenia" is a better choice, but I wouldn't dwell on it so much if not for the disruptive behavior of the editor I reported, I abhor this kind of behavior. I do look forward to seeing your efforts on the page, above all articles with neutral academic quality is the goal we all must strive for. Darwinian Ape ^talk 18:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Tiptoethrutheminefield. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{

ygm

}} template.

Well, you would, but you don't accept mail. I'm on IRC if you're curious. Elvey^(t•c) 20:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am, or at least I tried to connect my account to an email, but for some reason it would not happen. (Maybe because the chosen email account had the word "spam" in its name). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your addition to the enforcement request. I also wanted to bring to your attention that the Azeri user who kept reverting you after a period of time on Topkhana Forest has done it again. I think you could request enforcement yourself at this point. --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[52] Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "major points for brevity". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer, I do not take orders from you.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leave me alone, --Woogie10w (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be leaving a message on the article talk page - I expect you to engage and explain your edit or accept the removal of that off-topic content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the Armenian Genocide by Kevorkian, it is a bit long and tedious but well worth reading. I was lucky to find it at the New york Public Library. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I own some 60 or 70 books directly related to the Armenian Genocide - or it could be 1000+ if I follow the Turkish standards which includes everything connected to Turkey that has the word Armenian in it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have initiated a discussion of the source A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire at Talk:World War I casualties. If you get a chance please add your thoughts on this source. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ani, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kemah. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have taken the courtesy to remove more of that dubious material thats being added in virtually a "spam"-related way to multiple articles by user Freedom Wolfs. Me, Marshallbagramyam and Yerevantsi had done the same before, but it seems, having taken a more thorough look, that there's more to fix/revert than I initially thought. Virtually anything he added on behalf of the "history" and "etymology" sections on all those articles need a triple check. Furthmore, this source he keeps adding everywhere (Encyclopedic dictionary of Azerbaijan toponyms. In two volumes. Volume I. p. 304. Baku: "East-West". 2007. ISBN 978-9952-34-155-3.) seems highly dubious to me. I tried to search it up, but to no avail unfortunately. In fact, it seems as if the whole book doesn't even exist. Your thoughts? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He is still adding the "population is busy with gardening, vegetable-growing and animal husbandry. There are secondary school, club, library and a medical center in the village" spam to everything he edits! And yes, all that "etymology" content emanating from Azeri sources is very suspect in the context of Azerbaijan's policy to "Azerify" everything in Azerbaijan and to eliminate all evidence of any past Armenian presence. Some of it seems definitely false - such as the one added to Anabad, Azerbaijan. Anapat is Armenian for a wilderness or desert area (now most often used to refer to nature reserves but originally used to mainly refer to remote monastic retreats) and the word has no Turkic origin. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 12:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already pinged you, but just in case ping doesn't work (it bugs sometimes as you might have experienced), here is the RSN section I made. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tiptoe,

Do you think Ancient Anatolians should even be an article? Something about it just sounds wrong. Anatolia, as a geographic entity, existed only recently. And there's no people called 'Anatolians' in the ancient past.

I think Ancient Anatolia is a legitimate geographic term when it is used correctly, but I wonder if it should be "Ancient Anatolia" rather than "Ancient Anatolians" since, as you say, there were no people who identified themselves as "Anatolians". We have "

Ancient Anatolians" and "List of ancient peoples of Anatolia" - that seems to be two articles too many, possibly three too many. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)‎[reply

]

Hi, I would like to ask why the other parts about Armenians emigrating Armenia is "off topic"? They emigrate due to hard conditions in the country created by the President. So why should it be removed? Do you agree with me if I return it with different words using? BM Tornado (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC) BM Tornado (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What has such content to do with "protests" against his presidency (or even "controversy", if it were under the older section title)? There needs to be more content about the 2016 street protests in the article, but this is not it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because of emigration they want the President to resign. That's why I thiught it should be there. BM Tornado (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is your OR synthesis opinion - but the cited source contained nothing as specific as the "due to the corruption of Serzh Sargsyan" claim that I deleted. Additionally, there was (and still is) no content at all on the 2016 protests meaning your use of a source that was detailing those protests to make an isolated point without having any article content explaining its context within the 2016 protests meant that this content (whether correct or not) was, I think, off topic for that section of the article. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	for your special edits about by Sadeq Hedayat 23:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply ]

The article

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[53]. Apparently now you're my sock puppet. Or maybe I'm yours. Or we're communicating through "back channels". Ironic, no? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...and he says he's "starting a file" to prove it - it will be a rather brief one! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It does illustrate how quickly paranoia can take over when editing Wikipedia though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your support on my behalf, but I fear that you will harassed and blocked if you show support. Thank you. Olivia Winfield Torlonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.211.124 (talk) 05:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be for the first time that I would be harassed and either threatened or blocked by administrators for pointing out their mistakes. It is routine, so I know what to expect. However, I'll wait until the current bout of threats against me resolve themselves, then decide whether to raise your case further. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you luck. Olivia Winfield Torlonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.211.176 (talk) 04:57, 17 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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 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.

You have reinserted content into the Seth Rich article after it was recently rejected in an RfC closed by an Admin. I suggest you undo your recent edit and use talk if you wish to discuss your view. Thank you. This notice is FYI only and is not an accusation of wrongdoing.

SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am going to add your edit here into the opinion I will give on the AfD. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the AfD I have labeled your post here as a threat. Firstly, you copypaste a warning of a remedy concerning post-1932 politics of the United States. By no reasonable stretch of the imagination could this remedy be intended to apply to that type of article - or to the content I added to it. Secondly, the RfC you speak of actually accepted the content it was set up to decide upon - it did not reject it! And the RfC-decided content was in the article before my edit - the content I added had nothing to do with that RfC content and was added as a result of the recent Reliable Sources noticeboard discussion result. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding By no reasonable stretch of the imagination could this remedy be intended to apply to that type of article, you are incorrect. Be advised that sanctions have already been applied to editors as a result of their conduct in Murder of Seth Rich and the first AfD. It's only fair that you know that. Geogene (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am entirely correct. Just because this remedy have been used on this article does not mean that by a reasonable stretch of the imagination this remedy was ever intended for such an article. The disreputable misuse of Wikipedia procedures to censor content from that article is not "reasonable". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Responding to your inquiry as to why I struck my vote, basically I no longer want to participate in that topic area. As you can see from the two editors in the section above, I just don't care to deal with people like that anymore. I believe they have weaponized Wikipedia to push a certain POV and there's really nothing to do about it. It is not meant as an indication that I have changed my mind. Mr Ernie (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should have just said that when striking out your vote. Your action is fair, of course there is nothing wrong with withdrawing - we are not obliged to have an opinion on everything, or be obliged to continue expressing or supporting an opinion all the way to the end. But by referring to the "rationale" of another editor in that striking out of your opinion, your wording would suggest to readers (it did to me anyway) that you have changed your mind, and that the opinion of that other editor was the reason for the change. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok I gotcha. I updated it. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've also struck out my inquiry question. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiptoe, you might be interested in this. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EricSerge and that IP at the Sloyan AfD appear to be very similar and tend to respond to each other's questions I ask them. What's going on here? Is this some sock activity we should be concerned about? I come to you because you're more familiar with EricSerge's (or that IP's) AfDs that he has been filing for quite some time now.

Please do not remove my post from a talk page again as you did here:[54]. As far as I know this not allowed per

All you are doing is spamming an article talk page. I wonder what game you are playing? The AfD is mentioned at the top of the article, the AfD has been running for ages (with you participating in it) without you feeling the "need" to post a talk page announcement about its existance, and the deadline for closing the AfD is probably today. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice reverted the subdivision of the extended discussion at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich_(2nd_nomination). Apparently, you are unaware that it is a long-established practice to split long discussions into arbitrary subsections, for the purposes of improving readability, editability and to reduce issues with time-outs. Refactoring into subsections is talked about on the WP:Refactoring_talk_pages#Resectioning page.

"For long discussions, participants often insert arbitrary breaks by adding a new subsection heading. In fact, such breaks are often given headings like 'Arbitrary break' or 'convenience break', with an index number to distinguish it from other arbitrary break headings."

Additionally, WP's Talk Page Guidelines note,

"Talk page discussions should be concise, so if a single discussion becomes particularly long, it may then become helpful to start a subsection (to facilitate the involvement of editors with a slower computer or Internet connection)." — Preceding

HidariMigi (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

In those 8 years (and I note that you have made only 20 edits in the last 12 months) did you actually read WP:Refactoring? It is about breaking Talk Page content down into different subject sections. There is nothing in the advice there that is applicable to a series of keep or delete opinions posted in an AfD Project Page. Aside from it not being a talk page, there is no content divergence into a number of separate points: there is only one point being considered - keep or delete. By placing some editors' keep or delete opinions into a "Subsection", separated from earlier posts, you are implying that the status of those opinions is in some way different (and lower in importance, as in "sub") from all that came before. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:Hi Tiptoe. Dennis

Interesting how no one was keen to join our discussion on the talk page about the red flag (with a half white moon), which has been visible since mid-September, but when I just actually removed it, I was reverted (without edit summary), and an Azerbaijani-published source (in Russian) was added to it. See here.[55][56]. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At least it has a source now. But the source doesn't seem sufficient. There is no page number, and if the source really is a record of legislation, passed as its title suggests, then that particular bit of legislation would have a proper record or reference number (such as a date, or number). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. I just left a reply on the talk page. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rawadid dynasty..[..].. "His descendants continued to rule Maragheh and Tabriz as Atabakane Maragha until the Mongol invasion in 1227."
Ok. Bear in mind I have The Encyclopaedia of Islam on my desktop.

• This source, "P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs (editors), Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second Edition), "Marāg̲h̲a", Brill Online.", is about the city of Maragha. In the article after the death of Ahmadil b. Ibrahim, it continues with Aq Sunqur, with no mention of his ancestry or ethnicity.
• This source, states Rawadids were in Maragha till the Mongol invasion, referenced by (Minorsky, "Daylam" in the Encycl. of Islam, 1962, pp. 189-94), which I checked and the "Daylam" article makes no mention of Maragha or the Rawadids. So I would be careful taking anything from that "source" without checking the "Daylam" article.

• According to EoI, Maragha, Vol.VI, page 499, "The Ahmadilis. In 505/1111-12 we have for the first time mention of the Amir Ahmadil b. Ibrahim b. Wahsudan al-Rawwadi al-Kurdi, lord of Maragha and Kutab (Kulsara?). He was the founder of a little local dynasty, which lasted till about 624/1227. We know very little of the history of the Ahmadilis [q. v. ], which has never been closely studied."
  

So depends on what Minorsky means by "founder of a little local dynasty".

Whereas, Bosworth in The New Islamic Dynasties, page 198, "Ahmadilis:This line of Turkish Atabegs ruled in the restricted area of the town of Maragha..[..]..Maragha had been held in the early twelfth century by the Kurdish commander of the Seljuqs, Ahmadil b. Ibrahim, possible a descendant of an earlier family in Azerbaijan, the Rawwadids, and Aq Sunqur Ahmadili was presumably his freedman."

Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion. However, I think the person (Bosworth) doing that "presuming" needs to be named in the wording of the content, and not just through the citation. That there was a different ethnic identity being mentioned in each of the articles just caught my eye and made me wonder if modern regional politics was behind it. I can see modern Azeri irredentism finding advantage in having ethnic Turkish rulers in Maragha during the 12th century. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search for Ahmadilis and Kurds brings up nothing compared to numerous hits for Ahmadilis and Turks. As for modern regional politics, I am not sure Azeri irredentism would depict Turks as slaves of Kurds. Minorsky does state that little is known of the Ahmadilis, so that could be written into the article with the sentence that Bosworth believed them to be of Turkic ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he would have been a slave in the generally understood meaning of that term - Muslims were forbidden to enslave other Muslims. It is standard practice in Turkish and Azerbaijani historiography to depict the ethnicity of the ruler of a region as defining all those ruled by him. So, for example, Armenians disappear from that sort of historiography once they become ruled by Turks - they no longer have a right to be mentioned as independent players since they are considered to be nothing more than an owned herd of cattle. If the Ahmadilis are depicted as being Turkish, in Azeri sources this would carry with it the implication that there is a legitimate Azeri Turkish historical claim to the region. So that is why I was suspicious. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kansas Bear:I made a minor change to the Ahmadilis article. The Rawadid dynasty one still has the sourced content "His descendants continued to rule Maragheh and Tabriz as Atabakane Maragha until the Mongol invasion in 1227." which definitely contradicts the content of the Ahmadilis one. However, since I don't have access to the sources, or know enough about the history of this area, I don't know how the wording on both articles can be changed to clarify or rectify this, so I am just going to leave the issue now. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather: Please define where and when this alleged "edit war" is occurring. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it isn't occurring any more since I protected Tunceli Province. I see several reverts by both of you. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got nothing better to do than protect such a minor article undergoing such tiny edits? There was nothing that justified an "edit war" assertion or page protection since there was no sequence of repeated identical reverting, just progress being made to resolve a RS issue, and all you have done is interrupt that and retain the unjustified removal of a source required tag. The issue is about a non-RS pov source used to support claims that are to the advantage of the non-RS pov source (a tourism promotion site being used as a claim for the existence of and cultural notability of sites in the region it exists to promote). The issue has cross-article implications since similar low grade author-anonymous sources are used on many Turkey related articles dealing with historical monuments. I'll be raising the source issue on the RS noticeboard, something I intended to do before the protection, and I expect the page protection to be removed when the result of it is decided (since your "protection" is nothing but an obstruction to improving the article). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a conclusion reached then just ping me and I'll remove the protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I probably came over too strong in the above, but I still think nothing was happening there to justify a page protection. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the

Please enlist anyone you may know, that understands the relevance of a prominent American architect, to review page. Sincerely, it is very suspect the author has a personal stake in this article. As one in the field it is so saddening that puffery is being taken as anything of worth. As another colleague put it, who has also happened intimately upon this architect "I know interns that could run circles around that guy" The Altos project listed on Wiki has not even broken ground, and the principal no longer reachable. I spoke with investors claiming it is bust, never a dime of return. Look at the projects on subjects business page, is he architect of record on any of them? Our firm does not list prominent buildings we do rehab work on as if remarkable, but if so detail the extent of our projects. More self serving claims. youtu.be/DrhlBzw6Ot4?t=2m18s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.205.6.5 (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very little of the AfD justification (which I presume was written by you) is actually valid material for an AfD discussion, and I worry you may have irreparably tainted the AfD. Expressing dislike for someone, or making original research investigations into their character or business methods, are not going to be seen by Wikipedia editors as legitimate reasons for deleting an article. Neutral published sources have got to be found expressing those opinions or findings for them to be considered. I don't see any architectural projects of note in Barr's work portfolio, or any books or essays written by him or about him that indicate notability, or any academic achievements that indicate notability. I hope it will be the lack of such material that will lead to the article being deleted. The lack of any detail on his website about past projects is also obvious. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are not at all Wikipedia wonks, who know the rules here, but we know and have collaborated with esteemed Architects. Having nothing of noteworthiness didn't appear to keep the article from being published. We do not expect anyone not if the field to understand why we were immediately skeptical this article was not contrived by the architect himself. Feel free to delete anything posted you find "irreparable" even though the lack of any factual merit speaks for itself and shouldn't be given a pass. How someone picked a biography like this to publish out of the blue, considering the other pieces they've written is interesting. If wikipedia is full of notable people in professions authored by persons without any knowledge or experience in the field, not sure why that is prudent. Basically the article is a rehash of a CV being extolled for many years. As you noted, the projects listed, actually stretch if not break AIA ethics standards for claiming others projects. Again feel free to delete anything from this IP. Your community really needs work if this article stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.205.6.5 (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

need your help on

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for making personal attacks towards 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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Shill". Drmies (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2016 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I did not make a personal attack. It is not a personal attack to refer to an on-record finding on an editor's past behavior. I stated that Volunteer Marek had acted as a shill in the past. Nowhere did I accuse Volunteer Marek of currently acting as a shill, or hint it, or imply it. It was VM who had brought up the usage of "shill" by another editor, as part of his complaint against that editor. The degree of offense caused in a personal attack is a factor in deciding sanctions. Thus it was not inappropriate to bring up VM's past editing history of shilling in order to question whether VM's assertion that he found it "obnoxious and insulting" to be called a shill was genuine. I further explained that I understood the meaning of shill to be "appearing to act independently but in fact acting as part of an organized group and behaving according to a predetermined plan so as to realize a particular goal". If I have got the meaning wrong, I am waiting to be corrected. Here are the findings of an arbitration case [57] in which Volunteer Marek (then known as Radeksz) was found to be an active member of a secret off-Wiki mailing list, to have participated in discussions on that list to coordinate the actions that list members should take on Wikipedia, and to have then edited on Wikipedia according to decisions decided on in the list. It was also found that he had proxied for a blocked user, and "participated in a variety of disruptive activities coordinated on the mailing list". The arbitration findings show that Volunteer Marek at that time had indeed been appearing to act independently but in fact acting as part of an organized group and behaving according to a predetermined plan so as to realize a particular goal. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Considering the contents of your block log, it's surprising you were only blocked for 72 hours. You should take this time to contemplate why you keep getting blocked; perhaps your cooperation skills need refining. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:00, 16 November 2016 (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.

--jpgordon - you have answered nothing. I do not need to contemplate why I keep getting blocked by Drmies. But you need to contemplate the bizarre double standards of you thinking it appropriate to refer to my editing history in order to casually dismiss my appeal without disproving a single point I made, when apparently my referring to another editor's editing history is the reason why I was blocked. The cited arbitration decision proved that Volunteer Marek shilled for the Eastern European Mailing List. Where is it a blockable offense to refer to an arbitration decision?Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tiptoethrutheminefield. 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! I noticed you blanked the redirect at

Hi Tiptoe, please voice your opinion on this AfD proposal I posted for Seljuq Armenia. Since the Turkmen Armenia was deleted, I think it's necessary to do a slight cleanup. --92slim (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also sorry but what will the articles that linked to the deleted Turkmen Armenia be replaced with? and by that I mean Mongol Armenia and all the "preceding" and "succeeding" states infobox sections, links, etc. For example here: Template:History of Armenia --92slim (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for assisting in cleaning up this mess. I was wondering how to go about the merger of

Can you please balance the Christianity in Turkey and related articles? A Turkish nationalist sock ip from Germany tries to scapegoat a particular ethnicity (Kurds) in order to whitewash Ottoman role in those massacres. Also, the ip-hopper troll often behave as if he was "assyrian" or "armenian" activist in order not to be noticed. A clear false-flag operator. See:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc. His geolocations are:Switzerland and Germany. His current ip ranges are: 87.189.xx, 88.128.xx, 81.92.xx and various proxies. I think this annoying sock is a paid editor, because no one spends such a time on wikipedia, if he/she is not a loser. 176.54.79.225 (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you take a look at the article's talk page. I think the article should be rewritten by the real victims, not by an ip-socking Grey Wolf from Germany. 46.221.192.144 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading some longer treatments of the question this morning, I'm going to remove my long message as being half-baked. My NPOV concerns remain, but I'm not ready to delve into the semantic and political complexities of this question at the moment. Eperoton (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your intervention in the article, though I don't think reporting this as an incident was appropriate. I still think that users haven't demonstrated bad faith on the talk page, they just disagree on some key issues.--R2D2015 (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Two months passed since the deleted page was moved to User:Tiptoethrutheminefield/Georgia for Georgians. Do you still have time to improve the article? --George Ho (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been waiting to see what was going to happen at Georgian nationalism. As you will remember, during the AfD discussion it was the argument of Kober that this piece of Georgian history should be detailed there. I argued that it deserved a separate article. However, Kober has yet to add any of the former article's content to it, or even make a mention of the policy's existence there, in the article he created during the AfD and which he presented as a reason to delete Georgia for Georgians. So, yes, I will be improving the Georgia for Georgians article and hope to eventually un-userfy it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... maybe before re-moving it, why not using {{

subst:submit}} first if you think it's ready? I have done it before. The odds are 50/50 for me, especially for other drafts that either passed or failed. --George Ho (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, I'll consider doing it that way. But at the moment no odds can be expressed since I have not yet done anything to change the article! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, I only found out about the extraordinarily anomalous DM ban as a RS this morning... on The Guardian! I am flabbergasted. Is there anything that can be done, such as opening a new process, perhaps after a while? I wonder how many of us did not know this was going on. Thanks. XavierItzm (talk) 08:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as an extreme act (or, to be more correct, an act that appears extreme because it is close-to-home) related to the politicisation of content and sources that already exists on Wikipedia. On a smaller scale it has been going on unchecked in Russia-related or Middle-Eastern-related articles. However, now it has gone mainstream. First they came ... Expect to see much more of it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more of it begins: [[58]]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikimedia Foundation has a department that issues press statements? [59]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not necessarily look as if WF issued a P. Release, but more as if they have a spokesperson structure which responded to a query. Could be wrong, though. What is to be done about the DM thing, though? XavierItzm (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tiptoethrutheminefield, I just left a messages on the Lichfield Gospels talk page. For copyright information, I included these links: D-Lib Magazine, an academic journal for librarians :http://www.dlib.org/dlib/may14/05inbrief.html and Manuscripts of Lichfield Cathedral :https://lichfield.ou.edu/st-chad-gospels/historical-image-overlays . I just had an idea and did a google book search for Lichfield Gospels and Conway Library, Courtauld Institute of Art (1962 images) The results show a published academic book that attributes their permissions to the Conway Library: [60] . I think this proves my case. Thanks! Wilshire01 (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see you followed me on an edit I made yesterday and decided to do this:

15:22, 19 March 2017‎ Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (2,071 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Tiptoethrutheminefield moved page Hagia Sophia, İznik to Hagia Sophia at Nicaea: This is its name in academic publications) (undo | thank)

Looking at your history you seem to have a history of being regularly blocked. Now would be a good time to have a cup of tea. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one with the problem. You appear to have the outlook of a fanatic. You have been going around arbitrarily Turkifying the names of terms and sites, and, in the typical mindset of a fanatic, considering any deviation from your ideal world to be the thin end of a wedge to destroy that ideal and a part of a greater conspiracy against the use of diacritics on Wikipedia. Unlike you (based on your editing history), I have a specialized interest in Ottoman and Near East history, and in Byzantine architecture and art in particular. So I know the way things are rendered in academic publications. Your "textbook" of choice appears to be Lonely Planet Turkey! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you didn't have the cup of tea then. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British Institute at Ankara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David French. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an accuracy dispute tag to this page given that a contributor claims the forest exists (and has recently reverted your additions). Jackal 21:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why so many of your posts on Wikipedia take the form of little essays with a holier-than-though attitude that suggests you think you have a superior knowledge of the way things work and that it is something too difficult for others to grasp? In the article's infobox I have already used sources contemporary to the event for the figures regarding the alleged casualties precisely because all that can be done is give the figures that each partisan/biased source stated at the time. The issue with the material being discussed was that it has no known source, partisan or biased or otherwise. The Khanasor expedition was a revenge attack by Armenian self-defense units on a Kurdish tribe responsible for killing a large number of Armenians a year earlier that was also to serve as an example for and warning to other Kurdish tribes that they might suffer a similar fate if they repeated the same mistake. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any "bring(ing) about inhuman reprisals, and to provoke the intervention of the powers." Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It was for revenge" is not biased - it is what the sources say and it was the reason stated by those that undertook the attack. If the two interestingly compare"'s links are there to indicate that we can and do share the same observations, I hope you can ease-up with the advice essay writing. Expressing humor on Wikipedia is the quickest way to get a banning! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikifags appear to have deleted it. Previous versions are still viewable, for example [63], as are the archives, eg. [64] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on an earlier occasion, as an example of Sandstein's obsession about Russavia and the extreme efforts he would go to block him, that Sandstein had once warned Russavia that because he had uploaded a PD photo of a building in Cuba that happened to have been taken by a Russian-born photographer this was (according to Sandstein) a violation of Russavia's Russia-related topic ban (despite the subject in the photo, and the article it was to be placed in, having nothing to do with Russia). I now see that Sandstein actually went ahead and used that argument to block Russavia [65]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards 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 ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said a mere pre-blocking moment ago, expressing humor on Wikipedia is the quickest way to get a banning! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you are using this talk page to continue making personal attacks, I have revoked your ability to edit it for the duration of the block. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After receiving your email offering to retract the above attack, I have restored your talk page access and I look forward to seeing the retraction. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, if Tiptoe retracts the comment toward Volunteer Marek and promises to drop the interminable snark, I have no problem with an unblock. As for the comments about me, those are just stupid (I'm a real doctor, for starters, and I have a Dr. Seuss t-shirt to prove it), and to prove them wrong I'll show them my sense of humor: what does blue paint taste like? But mostly, these attacks on a fellow editor. Thank you, Boing, for your efforts. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw and delete (and now have) the comments regarding Drmies since as I explained I thought the block was a result of a different edit, one I had just made ([66]) rather than something said several days earlier. However I will not withdraw the comment related to Volunteer Marek because I consider my comment both to be an accurate assessment of VM's relentless editing style and editing aims, and an appropriate way to express that assessment (by using humour since it is pointless to formally present a case) given that no administrator wants to address the decade long issue of VM. To retract would be an insincere retraction. If an RfC was possible to decide the accuracy of my comment in expressing the essence of VM, the result I believe would be the near unanimous agreement that it was! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a start, Tiptoe, and I appreciate it, but I'm less concerned with me than with you and VM. You are welcome to believe whatever you believe about anyone, but there are certain things you simply cannot say about them. One think you could do is agree that it was unwise of you to say what you said, and not do it again, even if you have to bite your tongue every time you run into Marek. And do you have an answer to my query yet? Best, Drmies (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was just a symptom of administrators not addressing VM's problematic editing. There are many other editors who are similarly exasperated. What is the point of using warnings and blocks to suppress the symptoms without also trying to address what is causing those symptoms? I also doubt VM was offended in the slightest by my comment, he may even have liked the comparison of his relentlessness to that of a Terminator. Which actually brings up a whole other issue - you arbitrarily deciding what something is without reference to what the actual involved parties may think, in this case without evidence that VM considered to post to be a "personal attack". I do admit, however, that my post was deliberately off-topic, which is a infraction. BTW, I recall a past case in which two editors would post crude insults on each other pages for fun. A third party with more time on their hands than sense made a complaint that they were posting personal attacks, the case was dismissed since it was obvious that each of the editors did not consider the posts they had received to be an attack. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that edit summary indicates clear intent to

Based on your block log, this shouldn't be new to you, but I've blocked you for two weeks for personal attacks based on this post.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A personal attack against who exactly? Against the defender of murderers or the defender of censorship of evidence showing those murderers at work? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, likening him to a dictator--Bbb23 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should ask Drmies first rather than assuming the offense of others. Writing "those that flag wave about being advocates for freedom tend to be the ones who are the most oppressive when given power, as every post-colonial-era African dictator has proven" "turned your stomach", did it? [67] What a delicate little stomach you must have that vomits at the mere sight of advice referencing accepted historical events? I'm sure Drmies will deny any offense was felt by him at all by my post - he is a liberal flag-of-freedom waving dictator, after all, but one who, I think, needs the occasional Respice post te. Hominem te memento. And he is someone with a considerably more robust stomach lining than you. Also, you have forgotten that personal talk pages are not article talk pages. You have violated guidelines by deleting content from another user's talk page [68]. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:, please revert your deletion [69]. This deletion violates the guidance given here [70] and it removed material that has nothing to do with your stated reasons for giving me a block. You should not be taking it upon yourself to delete posts made by others on the talk pages of other editors. It is for Drmies to remove material from his talk page if he wishes. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are blocked again. I will not comment on the validity of the block but simply make an observation. Suppose that instead of you making this comment a user X, lets say I write that Tiptoethrutheminefield believe that the above mentioned user is a dictator. Would you be blocked? Would I? No one can accuse you to have done anything against the regulations here for giving me privately your opinions, and since they aren't mine, no one could accuse me (except you, unless I have your consent or am excused), since they aren't my opinions. Think about that. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 19:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is motivated by the following: It is human to be frustrated by individuals who have opinions different than ours. A society (such as Wikipedia) which asks to suppress any form of persona-oriented criticism is asking to behave against our own nature. Also, it ignores the beneficial nature of those personal attacks. I personally would want to know what others belief about my persona are so that I can upgrade the persona by making important changes. Besides, such long blocks based on such criteria inject serious selection bias favoring editors who are able to amputate human behaviors (emotions, impulsiveness, humor, etc). Bots (machine) are allowed to edit, if Wikipedia can give them space, so as it can to the whole individual. The only alternative is castling (like in chess)... if you give your opinion about the persona of an editor to someone (who may in his turn expose on Wikipedia in an acceptable manner). Feedbacks on the behavior of editors are important... and editors should stop assuming that Wikipedia persona and the real person behind are the same. As you may have noticed if you say this editor is a dictator, what you actually mean is that it's the account which has this personality. An account can change hand and outlive the original creator, it's just a mask. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - as usual I have no idea what you are getting at. If it is a blockable offense to suggest that administrators can behave dictatorially then a great many administrators and wanabe-administrators are committing blockable offenses when, on their nomination pages, they profess "I do not intend to behave like a dictator" or similar, implying that there are administrators that do behave like dictators once they become administrators and that many people know it. However, Bbb23 almost certainly has hidden motives here. His claim that a suggestion that administrators can behave dictatorially actually "turned his stomach" is simply not believable. Did he decide to take offense at my absolute-power-tends-to-corrupt observation that almost all post-colonial African leaders began by professing to be fighters for freedom and ended by being blood-drenched dictators? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the accuracy of the comment which got your block. Since you continue to hold the opinion that got you blocked, obviously either the admin to be consistent has to reset your block, or just ignore your comment. In both case it would prove my point that one can not suppress opinions directed against users and if bots are allowed to edit so as the whole hot tempered human should also. That was all I had to say. :) I just gave my opinion on how to tweak it for that to be possible. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aghperig Monastery = Beyaz Kilise.

https://horizonweekly.ca/en/62143-2/

Lauren Southern

"These fake ‘fact-checkers’ are peddling lies about genocide and censorship in Turkey" [71]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/34237784_The_Ottoman_government_and_the_arabs_1911_to_1918_a_preliminary_study_of_the_Teskilat-i_Mahsusa

Nursi - p36 "...in January 1916 he was captured and sent to a prisoner of war camp".

Perhaps some of your acrimony would be offset with a bit of education. There are no "permanent blocks". Blocks can become permanent, but none are ever initiated that way. Editors, whether they choose to believe it or not, almost always control their own destiny. Tiderolls 19:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you are not saying that receiving a permanent block is intended to be perceived as a less severe punishment than one lasting 24 hours, or a week, or two weeks? A permanent block is surely not meant to be one lasting less than a day, one that can be given out and then offered to be taken back 10 minutes later! I think handing out sentences like that trivializes and abuses sanctions, and brings then down to the level of the personal whims of individual administrators. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda lost at where my post needs interpretation; there are no permanent blocks. That fact, in a way, mitigates any modification of said block. Where you offer personal whims, my experience is one of informed discretion. Tiderolls 20:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say, anywhere, that permanent blocks last forever? I know that permanent blocks are blocks without a time limit. But there is a community understanding that indefinite blocks are more severe than ones lasting a day or week, etc. "Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy" - and there is nothing there to suggest that indefinite blocks are meant to be used to, essentially, deliver blackmail: "don't agree to do this and you will never edit here again, agree to do this and the indefinite block is gone and you can come back immediately". And in the case being discussed there is no indication what that alleged "significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy" was. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That you do not see the "significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy" does not mean the condition(s) did not exist. That you make that statement demonstrates to me that you do not have a full grasp of the situation. Regards Tiderolls 21:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there is "secret" information or reasons that you do not want to impart publically, please email me it. I give a commitment not to talk about it ever publically. Otherwise I will continue to think you and Drmies are just displaying the arrogance of unchecked power. Small-scale unchecked power to be sure 1:1000 scale compared to full-size unchecked power. I'll shortly be in one of those places with the full-size unchecked power, a land that blocks more Wikipedia editors than Drmies (or even Sandstein) could dream of blocking. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I noticed that you are a listed party at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy. Please comment there. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I was away in a place where Wikipedia is blocked. Since the case is now closed, I don't see why I should now respond (especially since nobody informed me of it when it was initiated). Alleging I have any connection with Russavia is laughable - I've already noted on my talk page (and a few other places too) that I, before ever making a Wikipedia account, did a college IT essay on the EEML case. So the connection is with knowing about corrupt editors, corrupt administrators, and corrupt editing practices on Wikipedia before ever making an account, and then opposing those things when, years later, I did make an account. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Correction: the CU request is declined, but the case is still open, not closed. --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]