User talk:Armanqur
Welcome[edit]
|
Armanqur, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi Armanqur! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC) |
October 2020[edit]
Hi Armanqur! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Medes. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Do not call editors vandals, and don't use edit summaries to attack either. If you think someone is a vandal, report them at WP:ANI Doug Weller talk 18:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Doug Weller. Thank you for your message and advice on minor edits. I'll make sure to keep this in mind the net time I do any editing. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "no personal attacks." I don't think I did attack anyone on a personal level; I did attack content, but I don't recall going after contributors. If you could clear this up for me, I'd very much appreciate it. Thank you. Armanqur (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Armanqur, I guess this was rather about "bigot". This is a personal attack and I advise to strike it out. The discussion in Talk:Medes is sinking to a low, and don't get drawn down to that level. Sometimes it is better to ignore such comments or at best stay as dry and cool as possible. –Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- But the person that I called a "bigot" said something racist. I called him a bigot for what he said Armanqur (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- As you see it is better to leave such display of ignorance uncommented, it will always fall back on them (see below). You have handled the further discussion with utter coolness, and a willingness to listen to them and calmly provide counterarguments, more than anyone else of us has had before. Good job. –Austronesier (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
- But the person that I called a "bigot" said something racist. I called him a bigot for what he said Armanqur (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is about the mess at Talk:Medes. Doug Weller talk 08:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Salvio 08:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Indefinite block[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. El_C 05:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Armanqur (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello,
I understand now that if I feel something needs to be changed or reverted, I have to take it to the talk page first. However, I would like to point out that I was simply reverting outdated, unreliable, and dishonesty referenced sources. I'd also like to mention that these sources were inputed and presented in a very unorganized and unecylcopedic manner.
Moreover, I just noticed that LouisAragon has enacted the exact same reverts to the Mede page as that which got me blocked. If what he did doesn't constitute disruptive editing (and I doubt It may), then it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for any of you to reconsider my actions as not necessarily constituting disruptive editing. With this said, I think I should be unblocked; otherwise, I'd at the very least appreciate an explanation on how removing such sources could in anyway be seen as disruptive editing. I'd like to take this moment to quote what LouisAragon recently stated about the matter in El_C's talk page: "Thanks for pinging me @El C: I might add that whoever wants to make an edit to Wikipedia has a responsibility to make sure that the content is properly added per the guidelines. Especially in this case, when we're talking about 12k content. It is not our responsibility as readers and fellow editors to filter whatever may be good out of the heaps of problematic content. Any good sources can be re-added as far as I'm concerned as long as Wikipedia's guidelines are maintained, including WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. The edit was not problematic just because of outdated sources; its also due to atrocious unencyclopediec style. For the record: the article has been a target for drive-by accounts/IP's and sockpuppets for years, and I can ping a dozen admins who can attest to that, including Doug Weller." I'd like to to be know that when I first enacted my revert, on February 14, I directly stated that I did so because I believed I was reverting POV content. Furthermore, I think I was inappropriately accused of being prejudice by El_C. If possible, I'd very much appreciate it if this user could explain how removing such unreliable sources on my part could possibly constitute some sort of racial prejudice. Also, I noticed that the wrong IP address was attributed to me by El_C in his talk page. My IP address isn't 80.191.203.92, yet my banning seems to be partly due to the actions of this user (which isn't me). For further reference, User, HistoryofIran, has told me that he thinks my blocking is unfair and unreasonable. Again, I now recognize and understand that I can't simply revert things without an explanation, conversation, and consensus within the talk page; I promise this mistake on my part won't happen again. I'd simply like you to know why I did what I did; it had nothing to do with racial prejudice. I renounce the accusation, and I would very much appreciate an apology - along with an unblocking. Thank you very much for your time, Armanqur (talk) 8:19 pm, 16 February 2021, Tuesday (2 months, 8 days ago) (UTC−6) Armanqur (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Accept reason:
In the absence of a response from the blocking admin, I'm downgrading the indefinite block to an indefinite topic ban from Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. As this is a conditional unblock rather than a discretionary sanction, it will be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Unblock conditions and can be appealed to the community at WP:AN. signed, Rosguill talk 23:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think El C blocked you simply because you do not use the talk page when you revert other editors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C#For_your_interest
176.54.39.53 (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe or maybe not. Why did you create this strawman "Kurdish" account commenting on the very same page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dirokakurdi
176.54.39.53 (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I was wrong for doing that, but I had already been reprimanded for doing it with a one weak ban. Am I being reprimanded again for something I did months ago, which I haven't repeated since? Armanqur (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course it is wrong to create strawman role accounts. But it was not the answer of my question. What was your purpose for creating this strawman role account back then?
A note for the reviewing admins: I realized that "unencylopedic style" was not on the initial unblock request. It was added later after the discussion on the talk page of El C.
176.54.39.53 (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I suppose it doesn't matter now, seeing that my block has just been appealed. Now I just need to find my appeal key. Armanqur (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- What exactly would make you think that ip 80.191.203.92 is me? Armanqur (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
- Armanqur, I'm responding here to your email asking if there were any updates about this. In the absence of any input from the blocking admin and based on my prior assessment, I would be willing to replace the block with a topic ban on Kurdistan and Kurds, broadly construed. You could then appeal the topic ban at WP:AE, although I suspect that an appeal is likely to be declined at this time and probably not worth doing until you have made significant contributions to other topics. Does this seem acceptable to you? signed, Rosguill talk 23:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Rosguill, I appreciate your quick response, and what you're proposing does seem acceptable to me. Thank you. Out of curiosity, would a topic ban on Kurdistan and Kurds include the Mede page? Thank you. Armanqur (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Topic bans apply at the level of content, so anything at Medes related to Kurds is out of bounds. So, my educated guess would be that a lot of the claims related to the history of the Medes and their relation (or lack thereof) to Kurds is out of bounds, but claims about their historical religion or prehistory would probably be safe. That having been said, the topic ban is broadly construed, so if there's anything that you think is borderline, it's probably best to avoid touching it. signed, Rosguill talk 23:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Understood. Thank you. Armanqur (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've accepted the unblock request, although do note that having reviewed relevant policies, some of the previous explanation I gave you is inaccurate: you can appeal the topic ban at WP:AN, not WP:AE, as this is a conditional unblock and not an discretionary sanction. I will also be placing a notification of the discretionary sanctions that now apply to Kurds and Kurdistan, as these were adopted since the beginning of your block. signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- No objection to the sanction adjustment, but for the record, Rosguill, I didn't respond because I wasn't ping'ed. I had no knowledge about the unblock request and follow up discussion. It just seems a bit off to take action on the basis of my absence when there was no attempt to alert me to anything outstanding. El_C 05:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
- I've accepted the unblock request, although do note that having reviewed relevant policies, some of the previous explanation I gave you is inaccurate: you can appeal the topic ban at WP:AN, not WP:AE, as this is a conditional unblock and not an discretionary sanction. I will also be placing a notification of the discretionary sanctions that now apply to Kurds and Kurdistan, as these were adopted since the beginning of your block. signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Understood. Thank you. Armanqur (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Topic bans apply at the level of content, so anything at Medes related to Kurds is out of bounds. So, my educated guess would be that a lot of the claims related to the history of the Medes and their relation (or lack thereof) to Kurds is out of bounds, but claims about their historical religion or prehistory would probably be safe. That having been said, the topic ban is broadly construed, so if there's anything that you think is borderline, it's probably best to avoid touching it. signed, Rosguill talk 23:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
- Rosguill, I appreciate your quick response, and what you're proposing does seem acceptable to me. Thank you. Out of curiosity, would a topic ban on Kurdistan and Kurds include the Mede page? Thank you. Armanqur (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
DS notice: Kurds and Kurdistan[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
signed, Rosguill talk 23:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Email[edit]
Hi, Armanqur. This is to acknowledge that I am in receipt of your email, but I'm afraid I'm not available to enter into a private correspondence with you at this time. Feel free to query me here about whatever, however. El_C 01:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)