This is an archive of past discussions about User:Meowy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Meowy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! —Khoikhoi01:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This edit summary "(→Request for Comment - inverted commas added to help Badbilltucker grasp the nuances of English.) " is uncivil and a personal attack. Consider this your last warning due to your other behaviour on Talk:Turkish Van. If you continue such behaviour, you will be blocked to prevent it. pschemp | talk21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Point of disagreement
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
For what little it's worth, it should be noted that Pschemp, as an admin, can do that without consulting anyone. I would not myself in this instance, but I am not her. I am writing for a separate purpose, to perhaps try to make it clearer to you why several other people do not share your apparent love of the pure-white type. There is clear evidence that pure-white cats, through some genetic arrangement, are more likely than other cats to be genetically deaf. If you review the three stated detriments of the breed, their loudness, fondness for breaking things, and jealousy of their "territory", all three of these can be fairly easily seen to be possibly related to a hearing impairment, either of the animal itself or of those animals with whom it has to most regularly communicate. Should the animal have any coloring whatsoever, then they are remarkably less likely to be hearing-impaired. Considering that the three cited detriments are what made some one source describe these animals as bad house pets, I can say that I personally think that being pure-white may well be in and of itself a survival disadvantage, particularly for an animal which, to some extent, exists today primarily as a human house pet. To people who seek the survival and prospering of the individual animal as being of paramount importance, rather than the survival of a particular genetic trait, your insistence upon attempting to preserve the monochrome white cat, even at the individual animal's increased likelihood of not succeeding in the domestic animal area, sounds uncomfortably similar to Adolf Hitler's eugenics programs. I want you to realize I am not comparing you personally to Hitler, simply pointing out how someone else could see a similarity between the two positions. By advocating the forced continuation of this genetically-disadvantaged type of animal, many cat lovers could see you as putting some outside consideration (in this case, national pride in a national symbol) over and above the health of the individual animal, which many animal lovers, including myself and possibly Pschemp, find deeply unpleasant. Particulary when the probability of genetic disadvantage can be greatly decreased by a small, purely cosmetic change, in this case, adding some coloring to the animal. It should be noted that the Turkish Van does not suffer from noticably high incidences of deafness. In fact, I could argue that the Turkish employee who gave the two British women the cats was perhaps trying to preserve the beloved Turkish cat by finding two of the more adoptable animals, which would rule out the pure-white deaf ones, and having the women take them out and make them as popular overseas as they are in Turkey. Your repeated insistence that only the genetically-disadvantaged, increased-probability deaf pure white animal is somehow the only "pure" van cat can thus be seen by these individuals as being, in effect, an attempt to justify creating animals whose lives could be made easier and possibly more fulfilling without the intervention of the "breed police". I can well understand how you place a different priority on things than either Pschemp, who, as a cat breeder, clearly loves animals, and I, who at one point during a local flood was housing 12 animals (11 cats, 1 dog) in a four-room apartment, do. In fact, I could possibly even go so far as to say that the pure-white type may be losing an evolutionary battle to the genetically-less-disadvantaged other kind. Also, I am myself sufficiently knowledgable about felines in particular to know that coloring in and of itself is in no cases cause to consider that animals are in any way of a different breed, and, on that basis, discount your claim of the "pure-white" breed as being inconsistent with external evidence. As you will note, I spend a few hours trying to improve an article about the pure-white animal to give it a chance to be seen by a greater number of people on the main page. You, because of your insistence in inserting your historical quotes and interpretations, clearly disqualified the article for consideration, even if I had not myself removed it. In fact, Pschemp had already added a statement on the nomination page to the effect that your insertion of POV material effectively disqualified it. In conclusion, I would strongly suggest you do the following:
(1) review the materials for newcomers which are referenced in the template at the top of this page, (2) perhaps create a userpage for yourself, indicating your particular areas of interest and expertise (red-link names are often viewed suspiciously, as single-purpose accounts like vandals and slanderers are the ones most likely to not create a userpage), and
(3) perhaps either join a group or project, maybe like some in the Project Directory, which will allow you to have an increased number of contacts and an increased number of more-experienced editors to be able to call upon when you have to. Alternately, there is a new program in which experienced editors will "adopt" a new user to help show them the ropes, as it were. I myself objected to the implicit derrogation of the newcomer by the word "adopt", but was overruled. Then, the editor who decides to help you out will be one you can turn to when you have questions or other concerns. I noted that you claim to have a good deal of knowledge about the Anatolia region. I am certain that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey would welcome your joining their group, and giving them any input you might be able to. Also, as an active member of both WikiProject Cats and WikiProject Dogs, I saw in one of the sources how the Turkish government has also placed the kaldang dog on the list of protected species. We do not yet have any content on this animal, and I am certain that the Dogs and Dog breeds projects would welcome anything you might be able to give us which could provide some information on this breed we currently have no content on. Also, I strongly suggest you review all the material cited above referring to our objections to POV and conclusions in content. In any event, I hope you realize that I think it likely that none of those who disagree with you are inherently trying to make money or trying to lead to the death of a national symbol, but are more trying to fight for what they perceive as being the principles of wikipedia and the best possible circumstances for all the animals we are discussing. Badbilltucker17:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Ani the cathedral.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ani the cathedral.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I'm not sure yet, and the answer might be none. Someone had uploaded a large-sized image of the same photo, without asking permission (which I would have declined anyway). But since the photo was important to the articles it was linked to, rather than just deleting it completely I uploaded a small version of the same photo instead, and left out adding any copyright note until I had the chance to look through the various options. Are there none that just licences an image just for use in Wikipedia - seems there isn't?Meowy02:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure. You should probably contact us at permissions AT wikimedia DOT org if the images are not under the license that was indicated. Once we've received it, we can use the {{attribution}} template, or perhaps something else. Is that okay with you? Khoikhoi04:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ani
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Regarding your comment on my edit. I'll give it to you straight. Your "meticulously referenced article" was actually an amateurish piece of work, cobbled together from anything you could trawl from the internet. As you yourself admitted, you know nothing at all about Ani, and had never heard of the place until a month ago. Because of that, you do not have the background knowledge to distinguise truth from fiction, accepted facts from contentuous statements, essential information from worthless padding, etc. That is just in relation to the Ani material you found online. There is much more about Ani contained in the many books, articles, monographs, etc that have been written over the past 150 years - none of which you have ever set your eyes upon. I will rewrite the remaining parts of your "meticulously referenced article" in the coming days. Meowy03:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The only reason I even touched the article was to bring order to what was chaos. Take a look at what was there before my involvement. If there was misinformation in the article, it was misinformation that a reader could see where it came from. Major revisions to an article should be done in your sandbox and presented with references when complete. What you did, instead, is throw down hundreds of words and left a message on the talk page that you would provide references "a.s.a.p.". That is about as amateurish as it gets. Please note the following:
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. (source: WP:V)
You didn't even manage to put a comment at the right place on my talk page. You are a novice here and your ignorance of how Wikipedia works is obvious. House of Scandal07:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Why does a person think he can write a competent entry about a subject when he knows nothing about that subject? In your reply to an earlier question from me, you that you had heard about Ani for only two weeks before writing your contributions to the Wikipedia entry on Ani. I was aware of the lamentable state of the entry for Ani before you decided to add your material. Its earlier form certainly did not do Ani justice, but at the same time the entry was too small for it to contain any objectionable content. Your massively increased the size of the entry, but also massively increased the level of its inaccuracy. That is why I decided to rewrite it. Everything you placed in the entry you found only on the internet and, as I had explained earlier, you do not have the background knowledge abut Ani to distinguish truth from fiction, accepted facts from contentious statements, essential information from padding. Writing about Ani from a position of ignorance is rather like blundering into the middle of a mist-covered minefield without having a map. Your ignorance of Ani is proven by your continuing insistence on citations being provided for content that requires no citations. Citations are only needed for content that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Nothing I posted falls into those categories. Your contribution was full of unnecessary citations. I'm still at a loss to understand why you decided to contribute to an entry about Ani. It must have taken you a considerable time to do it (so I do understand you annoyance at someone coming and removing most of it). However, the basic problem with your contribution is that you don’t know the subject and because of that, you don’t know how amateurish and inaccurate your contribution was. There must plenty of entries on Wikipedia that need to be brought from "chaos into order" and that will be on subjects you do know about. Meowy16:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
John-Smbat
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Hovhannes-Smbat was his name, English Wikipedia doesn not mean you change the proper names to their English equivalent. Yohann Sebastian Bach's name does not change to John Sebastian Bach! Meowy21:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hello. The inclusion of territories in the Europe (and Asia) table are based both on the UN geoscheme and, per the map, a common dividing line between the two continents -- in this, a portion of Azerbaijan is included, while Armenia (in the southern Caucasus) is not: this is already noted below. In the UN scheme, both are included in Western Asia. In Wp, the current presentation (long arrived at) is an attempt to equitably deal with these transcontinental countries. I apologise for perhaps not being clear about that, but be very careful about insinuations of vandalism, continuation of which will be ignored and willful edits without consensus reverted without comment. Corticopia21:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I prefer to believe the obvious. Your exclusion of Armenia, but inclusion of Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey, clearly indicates a not-so hidden agenda. Meowy21:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
And of course, you have no agenda? Put a sock in it. I have already explained myself -- look at the map. You have not. If you do not believe that, I don't care. Compel for changes on the talk page beforehand -- good luck! -- or you will be reverted. A bientot. Corticopia
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violation of the three reverts rule on the Europe article. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring may result in longer blocks without further warning. KafzielTalk00:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Edit 1, I add Armenia to the table, into a new section named Caucasus and also moved Georgia and Azerbaijan into that new section.
Edit 2, I add a note clarifying that population figure of Turkey is for its territory in Europe.
Corticopia reverts both my entries.
I revert Corticopia's revert.
Corticopia reverts my revert.
I revert Corticopia's entry.
Corticopia reverts my revert.
I revert Corticopia’s revert.
That clearly makes only 3 reverts by me. So why did you block me? And why did you ignore the words of Heimstern Läufer who, when replying to Corticopia's allegation that I had broken the 3 reverts rule, said 'I have in fact perused the recent history and found nothing' (and who was then sworn at by Corticopia).
In the light of this obvious mistake on your part, I would like an apology from you. Meowy23:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Reverts don't have to be to your version; they can be to any version. That first edit was a revert: you re-added Armenia to the table. Then you did it again. And again. And again. That's four total, including the first one.
Also, be advised that I often block after only three reverts. 3RR was made to prevent edit warring, not to guarantee three free reverts every day. Just for future reference, to help you avoid more heartache. KafzielTalk00:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, how nice it must be to be a wikipedia administrator, to make up the rules as you go and to always be right. So, with your reasoning, why did you not also block Corticopia? Especially after the insulting way she replied to the other administrator. Meowy00:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, it was a close one. And it would not be the first time I have blocked Corticopia, so don't kid yourself by thinking there was any favoritism there. KafzielTalk01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, could you also see the talk page of the History of the name Azerbaijan article. Users Grandmaster, Parishan, and Atabek are trying to suppress a quote which they obviously dont like, and are continuously violating the compromise we all agreed on.Azerbaijani14:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Sarian khatchkar.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sarian khatchkar.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Talk:Başkale, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. — Gareth Hughes13:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Said by a person who has just used Talk:Başkale to comment on a contributor rather than content. Understandable, since the central maxim of a Wikipedia administrator is Do as I say, not as I do. BTW, amongst their many other sins, is the one where Wikipedia administrators state the blindingly obvious as if it were a great insight on their part. A personal insult was exacly what I intended my comment to be.
And there was me thinking that the whole point of being an Anglican was to have no opinion on anything, and make a good living out of it.Meowy01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
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).
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Sorry - an error on my part - I didn't realise the reason had to be placed here. Here it is now. Gareth Hughes has blocked me for a specific comment I made on my user page. Blocks are used in order to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users. That comment does not fall under any of the specified reasons for blocking someone. It was posted on my user talk page only: therefore how could it in any way be seen to "severely disrupt the project". How could the comment have damaged or disrupted Wikipedia in any way?
Decline reason:
My understanding is that this block is only regarding comments on Talk:Başkale and here. Calling someone arrogant and ignorant wasn't good, following it with this general insult didn't help. But your response to the warning was to re-affirm the insult and trash sysops generally [2][3], so when you were warned again, you attempted to use someone's Anglican affiliation to discredit him, which is the second example here. So while I can't see that there was harrassment going on (though the block log actually links to WP:CIVIL), there was certainly enough incivility and personal attacks to merit a block. Blocks may be used to protect users against persistent personal attacks, not only disruption, and it doesn't matter where on Wikipedia the personal attacks take place.— Chaser - T21:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Let me clarify: this user was blocked by me for repeated harassment and personal attacks of other users. This user was warned about the behaviour, and has then taken personal issue with me. This user was certainly blocked for harassment of a number of users, that only eventually included me. — Gareth Hughes16:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
And what are the specific names of these other users that I supposedly "harassed" and "attacked"? If Garazo objects so much to being criticised for being a member of a cult (be it Anglicanism or Wikipedia Administratorism) then perhaps he should develop a thicker skin. Meowy16:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm the one who started the thread and would greatly appreciate any input. Hopefully we can get this guy blocked for a long time. BH(T|C)01:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
May be of interest to you
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks. Will have a look at it, and the various edits. May consider contributing. Depends on how bad the Azeri propaganda has got. Meowy21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
As you see it is pretty factually inaccurate. I did not know "caucasian albanians" existed in this time period. Did they not disappear by 10th century??? If you can help us with finiding additional resources and citations on this article, I would appreciate it. I was not the creator of this article, but I will work to try to correct it.Hetoum I00:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
yeh, well, that's the problem. The whole background to the Kish entry has a lot to do with things that have nothing directly connected to the actual church - but how do you tackle that without entering into the realms of original research? Meowy22:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, all I gotta say, is if you can find any additional resources to the article or can contribute lemme know. Here are the two versions of the disputed article:
Even the briefest of internet searches should dig up enough troubling background information about J. Bjornar Storfjell to make one suspicious about anything his name is connected to.
If you can gimme troubling info on him, I'd appreciate. His excavations alone give the impression he is rather unprofessional. What do you think stink about this cat meowy? :)
J. Bjornar Storfjell is "Professor of Archaeology and History of Antiquity" at a private educational establishment in America that is part of the Seventh-day Adventist sect. He is also the self-styled "Chief Executive" of the "Thor Heyerdahl Research Centre". This research centre seems to consist of little more than Storfjell himself, seems to work almost exclusively in Azerbaijan, and is not to be confused with the "Heyerdahl Institute" a legitimate academic organisation that is based in Norway. Storfjell had a close association with Thor Heyerdahl in the decade before his death, and his connection with the Kish church arises out of Heyerdahl's crackpot theory that the Norwegians are descended from people who migrated from what is now Azerbaijan, and that the Udi (the possible builders of the Kish church) are the ancestors of most Scandanavians. I'm not sure if there is a political subtext behind the theory - but I suspect that it may be popular amongst anti-EU elements in Norway who wish to use it to prove that Norwegians are not European in origin. There are also indications of connections with international oil companies such as BP and (when it was active) Yukos. Meowy 19:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, cheers. Interesting info you have brought to attention. I took a few days off and looks like it got worse since I left. Anyway, time to start throwing my 2 cents in on the talk page.Hetoum I12:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Arbcom
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
My "regards" to you are that I will follow the well-founded advice regarding everything connected to Wikipedia, that is to "just say no". However, discovering the "Iran newspaper cockroach cartoon controversy" gave me much amusement. So, regards for that. Meowy22:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
A thing that is also amusing is that for these "battling along ethnic and national lines" disputes at the end administrators seem to ignore all the arguments, valid and invalid, and simply resort to a "just-ban-them-all" solution. I see that heads were chopped-off by the dozen after the first Armenia-Azerbaijan Request for arbitration. Meowy23:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was against ban'em all solution. If you check the talk of the previous arbcom, I suggested to place all the topic related articles on parole instead, i.e. no one is allowed to make more than 1 rv per day or even per week. That would have been a more effective way to prevent edit wars. But arbitrators opted for individual punishment. In any case, I wanted you to be aware of this and present evidence in your defense, if you wish to do so. Take care. Grandmaster10:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
July 2007
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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).
I have NOT violated the 3 reverts rule! RV1 3rd July 18:36, RV2 4th July 13:40, RV3 4th July 17.00, RV4 4th July 19:30. That makes only 3 in a 24 hour period. Moreover, I had said on the final edit that I would not be making any more edits to that page for 24 hours because of 3RR. So I can hardly be accused of acting in bad faith, or conciously exceeding the edit limit.
For the benefit of non-administrators who may by chance read this I also want to say that while, technically, this is an appeal, I have not placed the appeal code in the page with the belief that there is any possibility, however small, that he appeal will be accepted. I feel I need to add that in case someone thinks I'm unduly naive, or are overly idealisic about Wikipedia, or dont't know about ethnically-based vested-interest groups that exist within Wikipedia administrators.
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.
p.s.
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
p.s. I checked english version articles of JSTOR for history of caucasian albanians. Dowsett's deals with only one unrelated passage, and the other one is a work by Mkhitar Gosh. I suspect you confused the rticles. Hetoum I12:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mention the Jstor article for any particular content, except that it showed a example for Grandmaster to see the name Kagankatvatsi spelt using the letter "L" with diagonal slash through it as a representation of the "gh" sound. Meowy15:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
p.p.s. Now that representatives of the other big ally of Azerbaijan have arrived and started editing and banning, either the page is going to have to be watched carefully for several months by many individuals, or just abandoned and left full of lies and propaganda. Meowy15:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
p.p.s.2 :) About your Center of Udi Culture question. Actually, the church probably originally was used by the Udi. After all, it is only a relatively short distance from the surviving Udi settlements, and 800 years ago I'm sure their population range and density was far greater. Architectually, it is very Georgian in style and so was probably built by Georgian masons. Of course it is amusing that Azeri articles go on about it being an Albanian church but seem unable to say that Kish was once an Udi village. I guess they want the concept of "Albania" to be vague and cover the maximum area possible - they even call medieval Jugha "Albanian"! So, although under wikipedia dogma you are right to want the centre of Udi Culture comment removed, it is probably an historically accurate statement. Since I'm sure we are both are fighting for accuracy and against propaganda, maybe you should let that bit go, especially since there will be plenty of real propaganda to fight against.
BTW, whether the Armenians in Kish during the 19th century were actually mostly Armenianised Udi, I don't think anyone can now know. Meowy15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Spelling - righto. Russian is clumsy as well as phonetically incorrect.
For Udi - the quote they came up with said after restoration their udi community blah blah blah .... Which is not true, it is a damn museum. I did not know museums were spiritual centers of culture.
For identity of "Armenians" in village and so forth, we can quote sources but not interpret them ourselves falling under original research rule. If anyone can come up with reliable published info proving identity of individuals in Kish, I do not see a reason to try to remove it.
Georgian features include the apse being semicircular on the outside, and the mouldings around the apse window. Meowy00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
church of Kish
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
According to Bosworth
http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f5/v2f5a010.html
" The Monophysite Albanian church remained separate from the Armenian one till the end of the 7th century, when the two were united under stimulus from the Arabs"
So the church can not be Albanian since there was no Albanian church in the 19th century.
Also someone should mention that the Armenian inscriptions of the church were removed
There is adifference between ethnicity and religion. Kish can be both "Albanian" and "Armenian": used by ethnic Albanians (i.e. Udi) and part of the Armenian Church. Meowy00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm trying to understand what the dispute is that resulted in edit warring over the Church of Kish article. Can you explain to me in a brief summary what you think the issues are with that article? --Richard23:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I wrote the above before I read your message at Talk:Church of Kish. Feel free to respond over there.
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
If I'm not mistaken, much of what you just added [4] is word-for-word from Bryer's Byzantine Monuments and Topography of the Pontos, for example "...the ancient river Pyxites, along which runs the main trade route into eastern Anatolia and beyond." While it is a excellent source, I don't believe we can follow that text so closely without infringing. Tom HarrisonTalk20:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It may well be identical, but since I do not have a copy of the text it is just co-incidental! I got the info from the Anatolian Studies article, which does not use the same words as I have used (apart from the word Pyxites of course). Meowy20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If you have the book - what date does it give for the lintel inscription on the little chapel? The Anatolian Studies article gives it as 1622. Meowy21:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I must have been remembering an excerpt from Anatolian studies. I returned Bryer to interlibrary loan. I remember the inscription was discussed. I'll get it again and check, but it may be a few weeks. Tom HarrisonTalk21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I was browsing and checking some Armenian churchs, and saw your impressive work. Good job you obviously know your thing. Anatolmethanol15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Meowy, he was refering to Ehud Lasar. AdilBaguirov has used various socks impersonating various ethnicities, including Armenians, Kazaks, Uzbeks, Jews... But you should not have reverted that much anyway. The point was that, Marshall, you, Hetoum, Vartan all have made more than three edits reverting suspected socks of AdilBaguirov and while Grandmaster is using this, he and particularly Dacy69 have gotten away with the same thing. Mostly because we do not waste our time checking other contributors to then report them. - Fedayee22:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The above named arbitration case in which you were named as a party has closed. The remedy is as follows:
The remedies of revert limitations (formerly revert parole), including the limitation of 1 revert per week, civility supervision (formerly civility parole) and supervised editing (formerly probation) that were put in place at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan shall apply to any editor who edits articles which relate to Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility. Before any penalty is applied, a warning placed on the editor's user talk page by an administrator shall serve as notice to the user that these remedies apply to them.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey, sorry I did not answer on the Kish page, just haven't felt healthy enough going back to that page yet. I am working on the Kaymakli article at the moment and trying to get it to a good article status. If you can add anything, please do so.Hetoum I01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Blocked
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
That comment is trolling, and the user that made it has now been blocked for incivility and personal attacks. You have been previously blocked for that comment. You would do well to not add it again.
— isaid00:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The edits are not vandalism. It clearly says at [[5]] that there is no fixed policy on removing comments from an article's talk page, but that it should be done only when it goes beyond the level of mere invective. Furthermore, removal of the comments will give a false impression that concensus has been reached regarding the entry. Meowy00:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Civility#Removing uncivil comments. You have made some excellent points on Talk:Lolcat. Please, please don't degrade conversation into contemptuously mocking fellow editors with whom you disagree. It's evident that you're not a troll, but if that's not trolling (or playing along with trolling), I'm not sure what it is. Regards, GracenotesT§01:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
warning
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I was going to ask you to clarify your stance on Armenian nationalism, but judging from your talkpage, I assume you are just trolling. Please refrain from blanking articles, or you may be blocked from editing. --dab(𒁳)10:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If you want to have a reasoned conversation about the content of an entry, please don't make insulting comments on a users talk page. Instead, make constructive comments on the entry's talk page. Meowy00:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
stop removing content that is absolutely undisputed. You seem to have difficulties grasping the concept of "sub-articles". See WP:SS. Armenian irredentism isn't equivalent to Armenian nationalism, but it is obviously a subtopic. If you want to merge the articles, do a proper {{merge}} suggestion, don't just blank content. dab(𒁳)16:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The content is in dispute - I am disputing the content. I am not wanting the articles merged because they have the potentual to be completely different in scope, if all the inappropriate material was removed and truly relevant material were to be added. Meowy19:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Re:
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The figure inside the tomb is Bel. Hayk's arrow is still in his chest. Ararat in the background with the ark is just romanticism. The flag is based on Khorenatsi's account and the general idea that the earliest Armenian banners depicted dragons. Probably a result of Scythian invasions.
I was wondering if some of the images that you have on your site can be used in Wikipedia, in particular Gagik I's statue, photos of Toros Toramanian and other potential public domain images? I'm not sure since I don't know what the sources are.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I've added the information you have given about the content of the painting to the Armenian Nationalism entry. Meowy19:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Editing restrictions notification
Notice of editing restrictions
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, any editor who edits articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area in an aggressive point of view manner marked by incivility may be placed under several editing restrictions, by notice on that editor's talk page. This notice is to inform you that based on your edits, you are hereby placed under the following restrictions:
Revert limitation (formerly known as revert parole). You are limited to one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism, and are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page.
Supervised editing (formerly known as probation). You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran and the ethnic and historical issues related to that area should you fail to maintain a reasonable degree of civility in your interactions with one another concerning disputes which may arise.
Civility supervision (formerly known as civility parole). If you make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then you may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.
Enforcement: Violations of limitations, supervision, or bans imposed by the remedies in this case may be enforced by brief blocks of up to a week in the event of repeat violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year.
Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.
Due to several aggressive and uncivil edits which you have chosen to make, including [6], you are hereby notified of the preceding editing restrictions. It is clear from this page that you have already been cautioned regarding civility and have chosen to ignore such cautions. SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I have looked through the RfA Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 page, and can see no such words appearing anywhere on that page??? The page refers only to "Armenia-Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts" - the edit you object to is in the talk page of a subject dealing with the Alied occupation of Constantinople. I have placed a question on your talk page requesting clarification. Meowy00:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
"You may be banned by any administrator from editing any or all articles which relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran..." (emphasis mine). Not only were you a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, making you well aware of the issues, Constantinople/Istanbul is in Turkey the last time I checked. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I see I may not have fully answered your question. The "and related ethnic conflicts" is clearly, by the wording of the ArbCom approved template, intended to include aggressively nationalist editing practices in the area of Turkey and conflicts therein. The main point here is, Wikipedia is not to be used as a battleground for nationalist struggles or any other. Your continuing references to "Turkish propaganda" and the like, despite being warned that this behavior is unacceptable, shows intent on your part to do just that and a need for editing restrictions. SeraphimbladeTalk to me07:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, you have completely failed to answer my question about where, in the RfA remedy decision, the word Turkey is mentioned. Secondly - you seem to lack any knowledge of the history of WW1. The Allied occupation of Constantinople was not (as you call it) an "ethnic conflict" and it is completely unrelated to Armenia or Azerbaijan. Meowy14:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I'm not interested in nitpicking over what exactly "related" is. The problem here is that you have been making aggressive comments regarding the nationality of users and sources. Given your status as a party to Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, you surely must be aware that such conduct is problematic and unacceptable. If you should stop this conduct now, you have nothing to worry about from the editing restrictions, as there will never be cause for a block or ban under them. If you intend to continue this conduct, on the other hand, it is necessary that it be stopped. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, Seraphimblake, I have asked you a simple question. Do me the courtesy of answering it! All I asked is where in that RfA decision is there mention of "Turkey"? Where did the text you posted here come from? You cannot go around imposing that Armenia-Azerbaijan RfA remedy on whatever subject you like - it has to be on a subject that is covered by that RfA remedy. As I stated, the Allied occupation of Constantinople was not an "ethnic conflict" and is completely unrelated to either Armenia or Azerbaijan so why are you applying that remedy as a result of a posting I made on that entry's talk page? Meowy21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
As Turkey is in the same geographic area, and is specifically mentioned in the template used to notify users of the restrictions (you'll see that template above, it's the one I used), I believe that there is enough relation to justify inclusion, especially given that you were a listed party to the case. The fact that you didn't like the answer I gave you, or disagree with it, doesn't mean I didn't answer you. SeraphimbladeTalk to me06:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
You have not answered me! I asked where you had got that template from? When and where was its form and content decided upon? As I said, there is no mention of Turkey in Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy, and the text you have used does not match that RfA remendy. Under the wording of the Armenia-Azerbaijan2 RfA remedy, Turkey can only fall under that RfA remedy if the article is in some way related to either Armenia or Azerbaijan. Meowy16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi! Thanks for your query. To be really honest with you I am not certain now exactly where those gravestones were - it is so long ago (1973). As far as I can remember, they were taken from the mainland - not too far from the old Van citadel. It would not surprise me at all if they have been destroyed or removed since then. Not only was I witness to damage to Armenian remains during the short 6 weeks I spent in the region of Lake Van - there was organised and constant graverobbing. I even met some of the graverobbers and bought some small pieces of Urartian jewelry they had just unearthed and donated them to the Van Museum. Very soon after I was taken into custody by the Turkish army (a very frightening experience - believe me! I was threatened, handcuffed and spat on but, I must admit, not hit) and driven around in a jeep with demands that I point out the graverobbers. Fortunately, I could not distinguish them from anyone else I saw and, I pointed out to the Colonel when I was returned to an army base, that I had run across the gravediggers opening a grave just a few km from downtown Van in broad daylight and that, if I could find them so easily surely the Turkish army should be able to find them too if they really wanted to. He finally grudgingly agreed that I was right and I was released after all my papers had been checked and rechecked and phone calls made to Ankara. Some day, when I can spare the time, I will try to digitalise all my old photos of that region and post more of them on the Wikipedia. John Hill 22:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks John for this reply. What I might do is put online some of my photos of the graveyard I photographed this year, and you might be able to recognise if it is the same place. However, it is not close to Van castle, it is maybe about 15 minutes drive from it, on the road to Aghtamar and Tatvan. On the same site as the graveyard are the remains of what may be Urartian walls, and at the edge of the site is a dissused lime-kiln which may have still been operating in the 1970s. Actually, the current road (which is now right beside the lake waters) may be a modern (post-1970s) route and the original road ran higher up the lake side, just below the cemetery. The Van area has certainly changed a lot since 1973, so your photographs could be very interesting if they record things that are now gone. Meowy21:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year and Merry Christmas!
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Meowy! Happy New Year and Merry Christmas! I wish you all the best! Thank you for your contributions, particularly to the Armenian Genocide-related articles, and for the civility during our discussions! Hope to continue them in 2008! Andranikpasha (talk) 10:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm going to be bold and remove that irrelevant "Jewish" section from the talk page. I'd also like to remove the "Deportations" section as you suggested but I don't propose doing so until we have stated our reasons why it infringes policy first. Therefore, if you don't mind, I have refactored the last comments by you and me and moved them to that section. Once we have given people time to read them the section can be removed. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Eh, no matter what we do, there are always going to be those who just finished reading Gunmen's hate site and head straight for that article to defend Turkeys honor. The one thing I hope the talkpage accomplishes is educating them, even if it's a little painful at first, they leave the place a little educated, knowing... I think its a good start to reverse the years of false history that they have been learning at their schools.
But then again thats not the purpose of that talkpage. If we tell them to stop it, we would be breaking AGF and BITE. The one thing we can do is to tell them to read the wp:talk and hope that they do. VartanM (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Shusha Pogrom
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Meowy, thank you for your participation and work on Shusha pogrom article! If you need any additional sources (especially the Russian ones) pls contact me! And also one thing: according to my sad experiance:) [7], your edit can by classified as a "partial revert" while an explanation is required, so as you're under AA2 parole, pls explain it at the article's talk. Thank you again and hope for a contact! Andranikpasha (talk) 20:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me. It doesn't surprise me that Wikipedia's serial complainant is again pursuing his favourite pastime. Meowy23:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Andranikpasha, it is not worth appealing the ban. But I would be grateful if you would pose the following questions to Moreschi. Has he looked at the edit which I removed, and if so does he think that the removed edit was an acceptable edit given that most of it repeated verbatim the content of the following-on paragraph? Also, does removing vandalism, even if it is inadvertant vandalism, count as a revert? My understanding was that it did not. Meowy19:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to you for NPOVing the article! Ill ask to Moreschi. And my understanding is the same. So thanks for your work its surely justified and needed!! Andranikpasha (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
You could try this, Andranikpasha. Wikipedia's definition of vandalism has a category called unintentional vandalism; there is even a tag for it. Unintentional vandalism would never result in stuff like "WE ALL HATE KURDS" or "LOL PENIS", therefore Moreschi is wrong to say that all vandalism must be stuff like that. Unintentional vandalism should be removed just like intentional vandalism, the only difference being that intentional vandalism can also bring sanctions against whoever did it. The edits made by Atabek and Parisham in each case resulted in the following text being on the article. Are admins really saying it should have stayed like this, and that the duplicated material should not have been removed? This is not a dispute over content!
These events took place from March 22, 1920 to March 26, 1920, and resulted according to various estimates in 500 to 30,000 Armenian and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths, and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians". Estimates of casualty figures are uncertain and varied: 500 to 30,000 Armenian and 15,000 Azerbaijani deaths, and destruction of many buildings in Shusha. The Parliament in Baku refused even condemn the accomplishers of the massacres in Shusha and the war was started in Karabakh. Historian Giovanni Guaita wrote, the Azerbaijani and Soviet authorities "during the decades will deny and try to hush up the mass killings of about 30,000 Armenians".
Thank you. I agree with your analysis, and I do see how my use of the word "vandalism" may have inflamed the situation - I will try to use less provocative language in the future. I would like to clarify one point: I did not think that Parishan was deliberately vandalising the article. Parishan's edit was, as you said, sloppy editing. When I removed it, I believed that sloppy editing came under the category of "inadvertant vandalism" which is why I had used the word vandalism and had meant it to describe the result of the edit, not the aim of the edit. Meowy16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your answer. Unfortunately after much further review and discussion, I find I was partly mistaken in my original findings. Not only did Parishan's edit contain a duplication, it also contained a restoration of the disputed "revolt" comment and sources. As such, your reversion was not only a repair of the duplication but also a content revert, and you share some of the same responsibility as Atabek and Grandmaster for reverting without really reading what you were doing. As such, I feel I have no choice but to reblock you for 15 hours, making a total of 24 hours, which is appropriate for a 1RR violation first offense. I have not applied the topic ban, because I think you made a good effort in repairing the copyvio damage, and you have not been part of the long running dispute over this material (until now). Obviously further revert violations can lead to escalating blocks. Good luck. Thatcher02:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have some points I'd like to raise. I can't read Atabek's mind - so why should I be expected to return the edit to what he had intended to do rather than what he had actually done (especially since his edit entirely removed text that I had previously worked upon). Secondly, what do you mean when you wrote "this was Meowy's first incident with this particular dispute (Waal)". I have not been disputing anything regarding De Waal. Thanks to their inexplicable refusal to actually read the edit, Grandmaster and Atabek claimed that I removed the De Waal reference - but as I said in my reply to him, it is clearly still there. All I removed was the duplicated reference! Thirdly, where did the "much further review and discussion" continue after the AE section was archived? Has material been blanked from the AE project or talk pages? Meowy20:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The way I read it, it is banned from the AE discussion page, according to the actual words used by Moreschi, quote, "you're all banned from this page for 4 days". Your comment suggests that discussion had indeed been going on in that talk page, or somewhere else, and has been blanked. True? Meowy18:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Azeris
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There are way too many articles that this subject has been discussed. The fact that Azeris of the Azerbaijan republic are former Tatars and the fact that the newly created republic was named as such, because the Russians eyed Iran's Azerbaijan province are well known. As a matter of fact, I was placed under restriction for saying that if the article about Azeris in Armenia was to include the information about Turkic people in Armenia the name of the article should be changed. Some of the discussions can be found in the following articles.
Yuu removed my edit. And I find objectionable your refusal to discuss your POV in the talk page of the actual article. Meowy13:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If you put that it bypassed the warning in your first removal of the /b/ link in the edit summary, I wouldn't have reverted it in the first place. I haven't reverted it again as you have a legitimate reason.--Seriousspender (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are reverting still, because your last two reverts didn't remove or add the /b/ link. Please explain the problem.--Seriousspender (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
But you marked it as a "rv" - so I thought it was a revert of my edit! I see now that it was not and you were adding new material so I have returned it to the previous version. But why did you call it a revert when it wasn't? Meowy13:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. When you wrote "rv mistake" in the edit summary, you meant "that previous revert by meowy was a mistake". I took it just to mean "rv", (which is what rv usually means), that it was a rv to reinsert the link I had removed, and that you hadn't added any new content. Sorry! Meowy14:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Bunyadov and medals
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
My grandfather and two of his brothers have received those mentioned medals. Does this mean I can create articles about them? VartanM (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure, why not! But seriously, what should be done about such unnotable additions? If Bunyadov has Scout badges or a swimming certificate, I'm sure certain editors would want them mentioned too! Meowy13:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment on Talk:Fitna (film)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was speaking as a human to another human, united against mass murder of fellow humans (I though thats what you believed in after seeing your comments in the Assyrian genocice talk page.) Chaldean (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement block
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
You are hereby blocked for 24 hours for failing to followup your revert at 2008 Mardakert skirmishes with a talk page explanation. I also note that the flag argument strikes me as pretty weak (i.e. it's rather self-evident the reference is to the entity bearing the flag). Thanks in advance. El_C07:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
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).
Grandmaster when making this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_Mardakert_skirmishes&diff=204655156&oldid=203359115 did not give a talk page explanation of his edit. His edit justification, given in the edit summary, was that he was removing an edit by an editor who had been subsequently banned. However, it isn't justifiable to simply revert an edit because that edit was made by a banned user. The actual quality of the material to be added or removed should always be examined. Grandmaster failed to do this, either in his edit summary, or in a talk page explanation. In my edit I removed the word "unrecognised" which had been added by Grandmaster, giving as an explanation that "the flag itself is recognised as being the flag of the NK republic, regardless of the status of the republic", I felt that this was as full an explanation as was necessary given the brevity of the edit (only removing a single word) and that the reason for Grandmaster's edit was wrongfooted. El_C comment that the reason was "pretty weak" is a bizarre thing to say, and his blocking of me seems unjustified and vindictive. Did El_C look at where the removed word was found? If he would have, then he would have seen that the word "unrecognised" does not occur in the beligerents section of the conflict infobox for ANY other wikipedia entry concerning Naogrno Karabagh - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagorno-Karabakh_War or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ring or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Shusha for examples. Nor (as far as I can see) does the word "unrecognised" or any other similar qualifier appear in the conflict infobox on any wikipedia entry (see for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gagra or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pawan .) In other words, Grandmaster's edit was unjustified, re-inserting a word that should never have been placed in that location and mis-using the function of the conflict infobox. My edit was done for legitimate reasons, and was simply removing that word. For me to be blocked for such a pedantic and trivial a reason as placing my edit explanation in the edit summary rather than the talk page is unjustified.
Decline reason:
The block is not unjustified, because in not explaining your revert on the talk page you violated the explicit editing restrictions imposed by Seraphimblade above. The rest of your unblock request has no bearing on the matter of the validity of your block. — Sandstein (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Further to the decision by Sandstein - sorry, I didn't make my reasoning clear enough. Grandmaster, by adding the word "unrecognised" into the conflict infobox, was adding something that was completely contrary to the accepted useage of conflict infoboxes within Wikipedia articles. I can't believe that Grandmaster was unaware of what he was adding and that he was unaware that no other conflict infoboxes on any other conflict had such a qualifying word, so it is likely that he was planning to make similar changes to all of the articles dealing with conflicts relating to the Nagorno Karabagh war. Such edits, including the edit I reverted, would be perverting the proper function of a conflict infobox and thus compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. So my appeal is, basically, that I do not believe that reverting such an edit falls under the remit of the editing restriction under which I have now been blocked.
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.
Comment Reverting clear vandalism does not usually fall under editing restrictions. I consider Grandmaster's edit to be a malicious attempt at altering the universally accepted usage of conflict infoboxes. By declining my unblock request, the above administrators may have given a green light for others to continue with this process of perverting the proper function of a conflict infobox. A request for clarification (or similar) is probably now needed in order to define what is acceptable content for conflict infoboxes. Meowy23:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Unjust block
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Meowy you should know by now that they don't care what you say in the talkpage, as long as you say something. It can be something completely irrelevant to the article... Like accusing another member of violating a rule that you yourself just broke. Since you were unjustly blocked, here is an interesting read from the kangaroo court's noticeboard. [9]Notice how 3 admin follow each other like a sheep. So next time go ahead and tell the world something interesting, something out of the blue. After all, its the deleteionists job worry about the waste of space. --VartanM (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, the main reason I did not explain my edit in more detail in the talk page was because I felt it would be needlessly cluttering up the talk page, but, like you say, it seems admins are not interested in such considerations. I think however I will take the issue of infobox misusage to a RfC. Meowy13:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Interested?
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey there, I was wondering if you would be interested in editing certain parts of the new article I created about the Bagratuni Kingdom of Armenia. I started a culture section at the end but it's rather short and lacking so perhaps you add your input on history, Armenian architecture, the churches, and the like. Cheers, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Armeno-Kurdish relations in the Ottoman Empire
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
In the Rise of nationalism under the Ottoman Empire article it states that "Until the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-1829 there had been little hostile feeling between the Kurds and the Armenians." I severely doubt this. But were the Kurds involved in the genocide promised a state or subscribe to any sort of Kurdish nationalism, or did they view themselves as Ottomans? Hakob (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I've never read of any promises or implied political rewards being made - but I haven't gone out of my way to find out so I might be wrong. I think the Kurds were "just" (in their eyes) doing what they had always done, only now on a far greater scale. I think they viewed themselves firstly as Kurds (of such and such a tribe), and secondly as Muslims. I don't think they had much sense of being Ottomans - to them the government in distant Constantinople was just something that would attempt to tax them and curtail their lifestyle. Most of the early Kurdish nationalism was based on resisting Constantinople's attempts at managing its Kurdish population. I remember reading a while ago some inteesting things about Kurdish political thought in this period in a magazine called "Ararat" that was published in the 1910s in London. There was an interview with a European-educated Kurdish tribal leader who was saying that his people would without hesitation massacre all the Armenians in their area if the Ottoman government gave Armenians the same political and legal status as Kurds had. Meowy21:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Not much seems to have changed, except that Constantinople is now Ankara (or Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran). The Kurdish-Armenian relations article needs some serious work. It says that treatment of Kurds from the Armenian government is bad (and refers to the Yazidis), but doesn't mention that the Yazidis distance themselves from mainstream Kurds for religious and historical reasons. The "Armenian government" is blamed for deporting the Kurds in 1937 (wasn't it still a Soviet republic?), but if the situation for them was so dire, why were they allowed to have their own newspaper (Riya Taza), the oldest Kurdish newspaper in the world? Armenians in Kurdistan are mentioned, but I'm not so sure Armenians in a city like Al Qamishli view themselves as part of a Kurdish state, even if they majority of people around them are Kurds. Hakob (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The anon sockpuppet
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If you look through the recent history of that page, it should be apparent who the anon sock is, and they have already been penalized for evading their block. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I did, but I had thought it was maybe someone else. Given who that someone else was, I'm relieved I was wrong. Meowy22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Lynch map extract.jpg
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Lynch map extract.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
The map was uploaded at the request of another editor, who wanted to check its contents. Since that was the sole reason I uploaded it I will let it be deleted, though it is public domain if anyone wants to add the copyright info to keep it. Meowy02:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Lachin
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, don't be alarmed but since I mentioned your user name at WP:ANI, you might be interested in this and this. Apologies if I've mentioned your name and you didn't want to be mentioned, I will remove it if you want it removed. Pocopocopocopoco (talk)
Blue Mosque of Yerevan
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The builders of the mosque and its worshipers wrote in the Perso-Arabic script and spoke in the Azeri dialect of Turkish. Why should the [Turkey] Turkish, with its Kemalist spelling, take precedence over the Azeri? In contemporaneous sources, it would be mentioned as Gyoy or Gyok Jami, as the Kemalist reforms took place several years later. Hakob (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have never seen that Azeri name in any printed source (except modern Azeri ones), which is why I think the Turkish name should take precedence. I doubt that the mosque's worshipers or builders wrote in "Azeri" - it would have been seen as a language of peasants. Anyway, I just spelt it as I would spell it. It is arguable that Turkish words should be represented using the modern Turkish alphabet (after all, we don't represent 17th century English names using the 17th century English way of writing which didn't distinguish between an "f" and an "s"). But it's equally arguable that for often used words (like Jami or Pasha) they shouldn't. So if you feel it should be "Gyok Jami" then go ahead and change it, it's not a big issue for me. Meowy01:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Garni Inscritpion
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Unfortunately the main reference to the inscription can be found in Vestnik, 3 [25], 1948, 169-181. I don't speak Russian and have no access to such material. Vestnik is a Russian archaeological review and I couldn't possibly trace it here in Athens. If you can ask anybody about it, it would be great! The Garni temple article will probably need some more editing in view of the article's information (see my talk page) but unless I make sure there is not any recent bibliography I won't try my hand on it. Be that as it may I have to thank you once more for your interest--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I will try to find the magazine and yes I am interested in the inscription. I am going away for the weekend so I will probably have a better look at your points on Monday. All the best!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I will have some more compact information on the Garni temple in the following days (I plan to visit one of the main libraries here in Athens). If you happen to log in in the meantime you can also upload the inscription you were talking about the other day. I would be happy to look it up as well--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not quite as big an inscription as I remembered it to be [[10]] - only two lines composed of maybe only two words. I checked in a book, and it is supposed to be the name of the Sassanid king Peroz, (459-484), which means that it must have come from an earlier building - but the stone doesn't look reused to me. Meowy01:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, what you read is probably correct because the inscription makes no sense in Greek. It says:
ΠΕΡΟΖΙ (PEROZI)
[..]ΕΟΝΤΑΚ (..EONTAK)
I can't tell you whether this comes from a reused block but the hole in the lower right corner shows that somebody tried at some later date to extract the iron clamps and the lead from the massonry . On the other hand, the position of the inscription on the lower line of the block might be an indication of a second use. Thanks again!--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hemshin
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It is a frustrating article to work on because it has been reverted or significantly altered every time I have made an edit. It seems to be the only article Omer is working on - I wonder why. Hakob (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Erzurum
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'll change the protection level to semi it in a few days, but there appears to be some discussion going on by several established users on the talk page. Basically, I need to be convinced that the edit war will stop if I change the protection level. Khoikhoi20:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Van Resistance - OttomanReference or Artaxiad
Meowwwy,
What do you like better his use of fine racist turkish propoganda sources like: Çelik, Hüseyin (2001). "The 1915 Armenian", The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period. Ankara: Turkish Historical Society, 374.
or his middle school grammar and mechanics - personally I like both. If you survey this moron to checkuser he will turn up to be the banned user artaxiad , who also gloated over Nazi Armenian connection 812 battalion article like the worst anti armenian could not have. Also a chance he is user ottomanreference - see his liberal use of turkish source and reinsertion of words including rebellion russian troops, battle of van and kurdish irregulars like ottomanreference. A checkuser and third [pary analysis should solve your problems especially since ottomanreference seems to have abandoned his account.
Inaccuracies in the animated gif map of Ottoman Empire
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Is there a place i can find accurate maps of the Ottoman Empire from the 19th century on? i would like to create the animated gif map with the correct information Rafaelherrejon (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A 19th century atlas perhaps. :)
All maps from the 19th century are accurate. It is propagandistic maps from the 20th and 21st century that purport to show previous boundaries that will be the inaccurate maps. Personally, I would just break apart the gif file to remove all the decline part, and leave it as the expansion part. Meowy02:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Sources on the Hamshens
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey Meowy, I recently was reading your arguments on the Hamshen article and thought perhaps that you might be interested in two articles in the Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia about them: the Hamshen dialect and the Hamshen people (SAE, vol. 6, 1980). They confirm that the Hamshenis are Armenians and that the language they speak is essentially a dialect of Armenian. I can translate to you the article about the Hamshen people relatively quickly, although the one in regards to their dialect would take a little bit more time.
In either case, both articles would strongly bolster the strength of your arguments considering that they come from a very reputable and authoritative source. Drop me a line in case you're interested.
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, can you please check the Ani#Modern times section in the Ani article. There are four inline citations that do not specify the pages of the references provided. As a result I added a verification tag next to them. If i'm not wrong you added the citations, if so can you please add the page numbers. Thanks.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!01:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember if I did add those citations - though I probably did. However I won't have access to any of the books until the middle of September, so no page numbers until then unless someone else can get hold of those books. Meowy17:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Unidentified pic of Ani
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Armenian Genocide article - Small tidyup in regards to quote/source anachronism
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi I raised a topic on the talk page of the Armenian Genocide article in regards to a quote in the article framed as contemporary (~1915) using the term "fifth column", which was not coined until 1936, a historical anachronism. I've made some suggestions on the talk page about resolving the problem and seeing that you have taken a strong interest in the article in the past could you rewrite that section so that it is chronologically consistent. Thanks 58.173.52.11 (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, I wanted to talk about the alleged book of Hovhannes Katchaznouni. I think it has no sense to mantain a section about that book ALLEGEDLY written by him (most of sources proving it are pro-turkish or anti-arf) in the article about the president. Aveli lav a martik ch'imanan dra masin, togh heru mna ira kensagruziuniz, vorov hetev iroq turkakan propagandaya. Khndrum em, indz ajakzi et harzum - text i masnike jnjenk. --Vitilsky (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey look on this edit of mine, what do you think of it? forget the merging proposal. I think my article is neutral, has neutral sources not like Adoniscik ones, and warns about that the authenticity of the book is not clear. And I did not put that "the remaining copies have been systematically expunged", I put that "It is also stated in the preface of the book that "the original was written in Armenian by H. Katchaznouni himself and then translated into Russian and printed in Tblisi in 1927" and also can be read that "remaining copies have been systematically expunged". There is a lot of difference (I talk about the content of the book, with the book as source). This only demonstrates that the book itself contains controversial and denialist content. --Vitilsky (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh really?
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
(fm vacio's page)
Yet another admin we need to watch for bias (or more likely for plain oldfashioned shoot-first, think-later, apologise-never). Meowy21:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I suggest you learn how to edit articles properly, and not try to lecture others about qualities you yourself clearly do not possess. Meowy19:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I am aware that you posted similar "helpful messages" on the talk pages of the three other editors who opposed your undiscussed and unsupported page move. Meowy15:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Crossing out posts
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This was probably not your intention, but this remark could be highly insulting to Turks. Please avoid excessively strident rhetoric, such as equating a group of writers to prostitutes. There are more accurate, less inflammatory words that you can use to more effectively make the same point. Please use preview and read your remarks before posting during any sort of disagreement. Thank you. JehochmanTalk17:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course what should be highly insulting to Turks are the continuing low standards of certain Turkish academics. I was using a legitimate metaphor and using it accurately - quote from the wikipedia article on "prostitute": In colloquial usage, the word "prostitute" is sometimes generalized to mean the selling of one's services for a cause thought to be unworthy, in the sense of "prostituting oneself" or "whoring oneself". In this sense, the services or acts performed are typically not sexual.Meowy17:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an international effort. It is best to eschew colloquialisms that can be misunderstood as dire insults. Instead, just say what you mean in plain language. Additionally, it is not helpful to make generic criticisms about a group: "Turkish writers have low standards." It is much more helpful to say, "Writer X has not been cited extensively. I suggest we reference Writer Y who is more widely respected." JehochmanTalk17:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
If it's a metaphor acceptable for the husband of the Queen to use (quote "Tourism is just national prostitution"), then it's good enough for me to use! Meowy02:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Translation
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article remains a mess. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help. It would be nice to have a copy of the Simonian handbook. For Christmas, maybe... TA-ME (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Katchaznouni biography p236.jpg)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Katchaznouni biography p236.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Katchaznouni biography p237.jpg)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Katchaznouni biography p237.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Images
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Anthon.Eff's position: "The support of editors with names like "John Smith" for Armenians is no doubt due to very deep anti-Turkish prejudices, persisting from Medieval times, prejudices that can be seen in many parts of Christian European culture, such as--for example--the geographical location of the land of Mordor in Tolkein's Lord of the Rings."[11]TA-ME (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
G'day. I happened to complete the translation of Hovhannes Kajaznuni's biography and I have to say, it truly stretched by architectural vocabulary to its limits. Mevertheless, the translation, while at times may feel awkward and clunky, especially upon describing the architectural structures, remains as faithful to the original text as possible. It should be more understandable to someone who has the book and is familiar with architecture terminology. Each bullet point signifies a new paragraph and all comments in brackets are mine. Enjoy and I hope the article is of use to you:
One would be hard pressed to find among the ranks of Armenian intellectuals of the 19th and 20th centuries another person whose life revolved solely around political, governmental and literary affairs, as the life that architect-constructer Hovhannes Matevosi Kajaznuni lived, flowing from Kajaznuni’s own character. Based on this very foundation, his search for a just social governmental structure, first and foremost, in regards to his concerns in improving the dire situation of the Armenian people, independence ideals, the strong winds of which, guided him his whole life, in his political and governmental activities, are also expressed in his published (and unpublished) works.
Unfortunately, this worker’s personal archives were lost, the causes of which are well known. However, his daughter, Margarit Hovhannesi Kajaznuni, was surprisingly successful in saving documents and other official material so as in order to construct an outline of her distinguished father’s biography, and kindly gave them to us to in preparing this essay. Asides from her and the monograph we authored on Gabriel Ter-Mikelyan, as well the articles written by Professor V. M. Harutyunyan and others, we have also selected other supplemental sources on Kajaznuni’s architectural-constructional activities [what is cited in the footnote are the names of the works, in Russian and Armenian, of the said sources].
Hovhannes Matevosi Kajaznuni was born into a clerical family on February 1, 1868 in Akhakalak (present-day Georgia). Kajaznuni’s last name was a translation of that of his father’s, Igitkhanyan. Hovhannes Kajaznuni attended secondary school in Tiflis from 1877-1886, first at a boarding school and then at a “real” institution [this refers to a school where mathematics and science studies was emphasized]. It is difficult to say as to what sort of conditions led to the awakening of love in the young man’s mind, which put him on the path towards architecture and construction; however, what is well known is that in 1887 he traveled to St. Petersburg and was accepted to the Citizens’ Architectural Institute, graduating with honors in 1893. On the 25th anniversary of the founding of the institute, Kajaznuni was selected to organize an exhibition of the designs of the institute’s best students. H. Kajaznuni himself participated in the exhibition with the design of the “Armenian Church”, which he diligently prepared for by studying the historical monuments in Ani and Echmiadzin. His interest in learning about the characteristics of the medieval Armenian school of architecture leads Kajaznuni, while still a student, to the birth of an ideology: he used [and borrowed] medieval traditions and reproduced them for the new historical period. During his years as a student, he was carried away by literature and, in particular, published several of Shakespeare’s works. In those same years, Kajaznuni entered the political sphere, joining the Dashnaktsutyun political party and becoming one of its most important members.
After completing his higher education, H. Kajaznuni worked at the Baku provincial administration from 1893-1895 in the construction department; he worked as an architect in Batumi from 1895-1897; and from 1897-1899 he worked at the Tiflis provincial administration as regional architect. He worked for a much longer time as a senior architect in Baku, from 1899-1906, as a part of the so-called “Baku Oil Production Congress’ Soviet.” During those years, robust activity was taking placing around the Baku oilfields (Balaskhan, [from here, p. 237 begins] Bibi-Eybat, Sabunchi). Many of his designs were implemented in the form of hospitals and apartment buildings (picture 155).
In 1906, Kajaznuni withdrew from official and construction work and devoted himself to political and social activities.
However, due to unforeseen circumstances, Hovhannes Kajaznuni was drawn back to architecture. Relying on the information provided in his [Ter-Mikelyan’s] writings, we had noted in the biographical essay on Gabriel Ter-Mikelyan that a second contest was held in 1907 (the first being in 1900) on the construction and design of St. Tadeos and Bardughimeos churches in Baku; Ter-Mikelyan participated in this contest and shared First Prize with St. Petersburg architect Pokrovskii. But because the latter’s design had nothing to do with Armenian church art, the Baku church council decided that the church, which was going to be funded by the wealthy Budaghyan (Budagov) family, to follow Ter-Mikelyan’s design. But the question dragged on and received a completely different solution. In 1909, the individuals who were tasked to carrying out the will of the late Budaghyan decided to hand the work to Hovhannes Kajaznuni, who immediately got down to task.
Kajaznuni’s goal was to revive the old traditional motifs in a new approach and to incorporate them so as to represent the Armenian church in a contemporary manner, with new proportions and new means of expression; however, with this logic and singleness of purpose, which wasn’t absent in his creative work, he departed considerably from the medieval traditions. The design preserved the center dome, the conception of the equilateral cross, the principle expansive four corners were designed in a rectangular plan with a curvilinear altar, which [in fact] broke one of the most fundamental characteristics of Armenian church construction: the center dome’s four-winged structure is clear and has an expansive quality to it (picture 156). From Kajaznuni’s perspective, the envisaged construction of following the four curvilinear plan rendered the design into an oval shape, which in turn also affected the expansive composition, departing from the latter’s compact unity. At the same time, the location and position of the belfry was solved interestingly in the overall composition of the church complex. The three-bay arcade was brought forward from the western [begin second column] façade and the stepped, narrow, slender and protruding tower allowed the designer to freely decorate the expansive construction (picture 157). The lower skeletal construction was also solved successfully and boldly. The designer had the drum of the dome lean on two cross-shaped arches, which in turn enlarged the size of the prayer hall. Kajaznuni avoided adding any ornamentation to the interior and exterior walls of the church; with [his] objective being to achieve expressive fine art, he substituted them instead with delicate proportions and buoyancy which were expressed from the entire church, the exterior walls and, in particular, utilized the three-arch window groupings on the western façade (picture 158). The proportions of the latter, by image and construction, bear the marks of Romantic architecture. The same could also be said about the “tchakton” and other pieces of the connecting cornices. Asides from this, Kajaznuni’s work carries with it interesting conceptions. The church’s design in and of itself is attractive, monumentally slim and light (pictures, 159, 160, 161).
Unfortunately, Kajaznuni was unable to complete the construction of Armenian church in Baku. Prompted by political circumstances, and following the ruling by the St. Petersburg court, he was forced to leave the country in 1911 for his activities in the Dashnaktsutyun.
Despite the chaotic political and wartime conditions, Kajaznuni returned in 1914 to his homeland and entered into the ranks of Dashnaktsutyun, with the valiant devotion to establishing an Armenian republic.
From 1921-1924, he lived in Bucharest; but in 1925, feeling the danger that was threatening Soviet Armenia, he returned to his homeland once more. He busied himself with construction work (Gyumri, then Leninakan) and pedagogical studies. He taught at Yerevan State University’s technical department, giving lively lectures on construction and architecture. Later on, he transferred to the construction institute of the university upon its establishment and earned the title of professor, and he continued in pedagogical studies.
Dreadfully, in 1937 Hovhannes Matevosi Kajaznuni was jailed due to political motivations. He died either in 1937 or 1938.
A big amount of thanks for the above work! I should probably have also posted the pictures of his Baku church design - it would have helped with the translation of the architectural description of it. Meowy21:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I saw your move, but unfortunately I don't feel it is uncontroversial. I won't dellist it, but think you should. I'd like to state that I personally don't have any objections or even any real knowledge about the battle, but there are some red flags. The phrase "this is the English wikipedia" gives me pause, because trying to decide which alphabet we should use is controversial. In theory it shouldn't be, but it always inevitably is. Perhaps you could list your proposal at Wikipedia:RM#Requesting_potentially_controversial_moves or start some discussion on the talk page to generate some consensus. Sorry if this isn't helpful. AniMate02:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, "red flags"? Are you an editor so PC-obsessed that you can no longer think rationally? Deciding which alphabet to use for article titles on the English-language Wikipedia is not controversial - we do not use Cyrillic for article titles, we do not use Chinese characters for article titles!
Azeri/Azerbaijani
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You cannot be serious when you claim that 'Azeri Turkish' is the only correct and prevails over 'Azerbaijani' or 'Azeri' which have been in much wider use among scholars. I am not even going to bother asking for argumentation. Morever I would refrain from pushing this claim further, if I were you, because I believe you are aware of the region's history and realities enough to know better than making such controversial statements and would not like to waste your time trying to argue something that can be easily disputed and proven inaccurate. Parishan (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Gorky's painting
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I proposed it for speedy deletion some months ago, but it was decided by an administrator that it did not meet the criteria. Now that more editors have commented on its dubious claim to exist, maybe now is the time to nominate it for deletion. Meowy02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
I'm undoing this only because copy-and-paste moves are very bad things. Don't copy and paste the current article over; if anything, move (by submitting a move request, since an existing article is there) the article, since it's currently primarily about the NAR, and then make a new article at the current location about the region. --Golbez (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I was not "copying-and pasting". I do not want to "move" the article so why would I request a move? I was duplicating the article and was then going to remove from the "Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic" article anything that should only be in the "Nakhchivan" article. To be honest, this is the only way that this issue is going to be solved and you should let me, as a neutral party, be bold and get on with doing it. "Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic" is clearly a different entity than just the geographical region of Nakhchivan and, as an existing example to follow, we already have a separate entry for Nakhchivan Khanate. Please would you restore my edits. Meowy02:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
You did, in fact, copy Nachichevan and paste it into Nachichevan Autonomous Republic. Moves must be done without copying and pasting in order to retain the edit history. You may not think you were moving it but that is exactly what a copy and paste is. If you want to do this, instead of copying the whole article over and whittling it down, copy only the parts to keep over and build it up. Finally, do you really have the gall to call yourself a neutral party? --Golbez (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Given that you administrators have the gall to bring up the alleged ethnicity of editors at every opportunity - you wrote in the article's talk page "Armenian editors all have exactly one position, and the Azeri editors have exactly the opposite decision" - by your standards I am a neutral party. Meowy17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Should be "according to Golbez, Meowy is automatically neutral by virtue of not being Armenian or Azeri". Meowy17:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I should have elaborated I suppose; I meant those with pro-Armenian views, and those with pro-Azeri views. Anyway, just because "Armenians" are for a certain side doesn't mean you can't be equally biased. --Golbez (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
If that were an honest, upfront sorry for saying what you had wrote, rather than just a sorry for not having written what you meant, then it would be more valuable. I believe that what you wrote was exactly what you had wanted to say - but I do hope you have now thought a bit more about it, and see it isn't helpful to be saying such things. (And you are not like some admins, Jehochman for example, who regularly use allegations of race to dismiss or trivialise issues). However, you are still off-track if you think there are things like "pro-Armenian views" or "pro-Azeri views". Meowy20:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Monuments and stones
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
I note that in this diff, you changed tuff to tufa. These are extremely dissimilar types of stone, and tuff has substantial use in construction. Are you sure about that change? DS (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
"Tufa" and "Tuff" are words used for either exactly the same type of stone, or (as you wrote) for two completely different types of stone. But it seems to be mostly in North America that they apply to two different types of stone. In Europe they are interchangeable words and mostly used to describe a type of volcanic stone, and tufa seems to be the one most used in sources that talk about Armenian buildings. See the Armenian Architecture entry, and its talk page. There is a problem with the Wikipedia tufa article in that it does not reflect this reality. Meowy19:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Oxford Dictionary of Architecture, "Tufa: rough porous stone, such as that from which the Roman catacombs are cut"
Penguin Dictionary of Architecture, "Tufa: the commonest Roman building stone, formed from volcanic dust. It is porous and grey".
Classic Dictionary of Architecture, (originally published in 1875), "Tufa, Tufo, Tuff: a porous stone either deposited by calcareous waters or formed by successive layers of volcanic dust". Meowy20:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
... oy. This is going to be a pain to get sorted out; maybe someone from the Geology wikiproject can help. Thank you for showing your sources, at least. DS (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Geologically the two rock types are quite distinct in composition and origin. The respective Wiki articles do a pretty good job of describing each. The problem arises, as your defs show, because architects and stoneworkers make their own definitions usually based soley on workability and structural competence. The last def completely smerges the two distinct rock types and is rather unhelpful. Given that tuff is composed of predominately silicate rock fragments and glass while tufa is made of calcium carbonate, it should be quite simple to distinguish between the two with a bit of dilute HCl - if it fizzes it's tufa. Of course a porous tuff may well have carbonate deposited within the pores by groundwater circulation, always complications. As Awickert stated on the the geo board, the monument looks like tuff, but can't tell much from a picture. Send us a chunk and we'll tell you what it is :-) End result: find out whether the rock used is volcanic ashfall or calcareous hot spring in origin and state the nature of the beast with some kind of disclaimer about the local/regional usage of the term tufa. Vsmith (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Addenda: Dictionary of Architecture and Construction (Dictionary of Architecture & Construction)ISBN0071452370 p. 1022, gives:
tufa: a porous limestone used in masonry construction.
tuff, volcanic tuff: a low density, high porosity rock; composed of volcanic particles ... sometimes used as a building stone.
Though architects and stoneworkers came before geologists. It is an architectural monument, and all the books on Armenian architecture seem to use the word tufa, regardless of what geologists would call it. The monument will almost certainy be made of volcanic "tufa" (i.e. what geologists nowadays would call "tuff")Meowy03:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is written for global users of en.wiki not for Armenian architects and stoneworkers. Therefore a clarifying note such as the parenthetical in your post above, should be included in the article to avoid confusing the general reader and those geologically savvy. Clarity not confusion is the goal. Vsmith (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not as clear-cut as you are making out. If all English language books on the architecture of this region use the word tufa, then it would not be correct to have the word "tuf" used as the primary description of the stone. There is also the still to be answered question of whether the use of the word "tufa" to describe a type of limestone is confined just to north America. Meowy17:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Where did I say "tuff" should be the primary? I simply said that in the interest of clarity for the general reader that a note should be worked into the description. And that is quite "clear-cut". Perhaps this thread needs to be moved to the article talk for others to comment. Vsmith (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought that is what you were implying by saying "is written for global users of en.wiki not for Armenian architects and stoneworkers". Also, remember architecture and sculpture predates the study of geology by several thousand years, so I think geological terms for a substance should not necessarily have precendence over architectural or scupltural terms for the same substance. Meowy16:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Svante_Cornell
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Where would you prefer the new published information be mentioned in the Mehmed Talat article? Was this;
Mehmed Talat was the interior minister who ordered the arrest of Armenian leaders with a order on April 24, 1915 and sent a request for the Tehcir Law on May 29, 1915. This initiated the large scale genocide of the Ottoman Armenians, which was recorded in Talat Pasha's official documents showing the extermination of 970,000 Armenians from 1915-1916. He is allegedly quoted as saying "Kill every Armenian man, woman, and child without concern for anything" [2] recorded in the "The Memoirs of Naim Bey", though their authenticity has been disputed.
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
As a protecting admin, I protect things on the wrong version; picking a different wrong version after the fact would kind of negate the whole concept. As for it "not being an edit war", in the past 48 hours there have been 7 reverts with zero other edits. There is discussion going on; both sides can learn to wait until the discussion is over to continue editing. --Golbez (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I will appeal the protection tomorrow. There was no "edit war", and your flippant "another week, another war" comment (like your earlier ethnicity comments) does little to encourage faith in your ability to judge these things. I will not be making any more contributions to the talk page until the protection is lifted. Meowy03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You seem to be unclear as to where I stand on the issue of the armenian genocide. I am not trying to promote any view. I am not a propagandist. I have no personal agenda, except to pursue compromise and honest truth. I am not currently an admin-hopeful, or even close to it. I am not trying to stamp out any POV material, or introduce it. I am not trying to threaten you. I am not "siding" with Ibrahim, he is simply not opposed to mediation as he had been at one point, and is trying to reach a compromise. I do not act in bad faith, taking wikibreaks anytime I think I may be getting a little too hot. I just want you to know where I stand. Tealwisp (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Ibrahim is not trying to reach a compromise. I really don't understand how you can still think he is. And compromise and honest truth rarely walk hand in hand. Meowy01:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
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).
As a general point, I dispute the fact that AA2 is still in force and I am under its restrictions. However, for this spicific issue, I was reverting undisputable vandalism by Elsanaturk who had removed a legitimately inserted POV tag three times from an article [13], [14], [15], without giving any reasoning or discussion about its removal in the article's talk page. In that talk page I had given several compelling reasons why the article should have pov tag, and had also suggested directions that could be taken to remove it. I also gave proper explanations in the edit summary, explanations which Elsanaturk chose to studiously ignore. In what way did these edits, quote, "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process"? If anything, it was the editor whose edits I was reverting that were guilty of it! I also question why Brandmeister waited a week to make this complaint.
Decline reason:
Merely because you call it vandalism, does not mean that it is. This looks like a clear content dispute/edit war and this block looks fully justified. Also, since this block request does not contain any assurances that you intend to stop violating the rules, I am declining this request. Jayron32.talk.contribs18:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Jayron32's comments are bizarre, without a basis in reason, and seem deliberately aggressive. A validly-inserted pov tag should not be removed until the reasons for its insertion are resolved. That is what it says on the tag, quote: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved". Also, here [[16]] "If your sole contribution to an article is to repeatedly add or remove the tag, chances are high that you are abusing your "right" to use the tag". Elsanaturk repeatedly removed the pov tag before the issue was resolved, in fact that editor made no attempt at all to resolve it, ignoring what was written in the talk page. So why is restoring a legitimately-inserted pov tag a "content dispute/edit war"? How was my restoring of it doing damage or disruption that justified a block? And in what way does restoring it "fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" that would deserve a block under AA2? All this took place a week ago and the article has remained unchanged since then - so, it's hardly an "edit war" and it seems that Elsanaturk has realised the error of removing the tag (and nobody has disputed its validity). What rules is jayron32 claiming that I have violated? I legitimately restored an illegitimately removed pov tag, I gave a detailed explanation in the article's talk page about the npov allegation, and I gave a proper, politely-worded, edit summary for each revert made to restore the removed pov tag. I have not done any damage or caused any disruption. So why the block?
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
This is my third atempt to get either a proper justification for this block, or to get the block lifted. What restrictions have I violated? I reinserted three times a pov tag that had been improperly removed three times. In what way did this action fall under the "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" wording of AA2? And in what way did it do damage or disruption deserving of a block? If my block is valid, why did the administrator who gave me it for my three good-faith reverts refuse to give Elsanaturk a block for his three reverts that incorrectly removed the pov tag? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#AA2_breach, despite Elsanaturk being under both AA1 and AA2 restrictions?
Decline reason:
Your restrictions are listed on your own talk page; you violated these restrictions [not for the first time] and so you were given a rather lenient block. You've not addressed the block reason, and since I told you not to waste our time with another but you still did, I'm forced to lock your page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
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.
The Purple Barnstar
I VartanM award the Purple Star to Meowy for enduring a bad block after reverting vandalism.
Re:
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I don't believe I have come in contact with him before. Nevertheless, redress seems necessary over here, as there was no point in warning Elsanturk of the 3RR, nor even the 1RR, since he is a long-established user and clearly broke the 1RR set by the ArbComs. I have to say his silence in pointing out these irregularities is deafening. Another admin. should perhaps investigate his flippant attitude towards the report of the violation.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes I did notice that. Deacon of Pndapetzim thinks it is "stale" for Elsanturk, but not "stale" for me - though both alleged infractions occured at exactly the same time! And before he wrote that I had pointed out in my appeal to lift the block that the event had happened 6 days earlier, yet he ignored it. It seems to be another case of unabashed bias. Meowy01:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
April 2009
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
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).
Sandstein's block appears to be based on his assumption that I have made two reverts to the same article within a week. I have not made two reverts. The first edit, [17], was reinserting a map that had been removed from the article over a week earlier [18] by Atabəy. It was removed by him without discussion immediately after the page had been unprotected [19]. My second edit, [20], which was a revert, was reinserting the map after it had been removed again. I also discussed that reversion on the page's talk page [21] as required. I do not wish Sandstein's co-worker, Deacon of Pndapetzim, to be involved in this appeal.
Decline reason:
Both edits were reverts. The fact that the first took place a few days after the edit it reverted is does not excuse it. Indeed you could have not have reverted it (without penalty) at the time because you were compelled to wait due to your revert of 27 March. What is more, the first and second reverts were clearly the continuation of an edit-war over the map involving a number of users. CIreland (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
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.
Regarding CIreland's above interpretation, it is not just "a few days". The time between the revert I made on the 27th March [22] and the revert I made on the 4th April [23] is eight days so I have not exceeded one revert per page per week.
CIreland seems to be saying that an edit (this edit: [24]) which adds material to an entry is a revert if any of that added material has, at any point in the past, been in the entry before and then been removed. I do not believe that such a broad concept of a revert is an accurate, reasonable, or sustainable definition of a revert for sanctions purposes. In contentious articles with a long history of edits it would risk making every edit a revert. It says here Wikipedia:REV that reverting means returning an article to an earlier version.
Sandstein's comment below exhibits far more than just an overly broad concept. He is conciously distorting and misusing guidelines. He lifts the definition of a revert that is meant to apply only to the 3-revert-rule guidelines and then attempts to misuse it in order to excuse his misuse of his admin powers to harass another editor.Meowy17:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This is just to note that Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk·contribs) is not my "co-worker"; in fact, I do not know him or her. Also, your first edit was a revert as well because it restored a part of the page (the map part of the infobox) to a previous state; WP:3RR defines a revert as "any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." Sandstein 05:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
AA2 defines a revert that falls under its sanctions as "one revert per page per week, excepting obvious vandalism", and editors "are required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page". I made only one revert to that article in a week and I discussed it in the article's talk page. Meowy10:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Also of note is that following his initial blocking, Meowy left a message on Sandstein's talk page telling him that he would be "taking matters elsewhere" – a message to which he never received a reply. Sandstein's latest block was in bad faith. Instead of addressing Meowy's concerns, Sandstein jumped at the opportunity to block him, citing some reversion mumbo jumbo to justify it. Really, wouldn't a warning have sufficed? TA-ME (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Sandstein's reply to me is this 7 day ban, done to prevent me from taking matters further. Sandstein and Deacon of Pndapetzim do have an edit history indicating close co-operation, a history of supporting each others decisions, especially in relation to AA2 decisions and acting in an extremely partisan way in enforcing them. It has already been pointed out that Deacon of Pndapetzim said an edit was "stale" to support an AA2 decision by Sandstein, but a near identical edit, done at exactly the same time, he considered still active, again to support an AA2 decision by Sandstein. Sandstein later attempted to disguise the contradictory nature of those two decisions by separating them in the Administrators' noticeboard. They were originally placed side by side: [25], but now it is [26]. Here is another example of Saandstein and Deacon of Pndapetzim working together: [27]. VartanM's appeals against a block are twice rejected by Sandstein, then it is pointed out by another editor that the AA1 restrictions applying to VartanM had actually run out over a year earlier. In response to this, Deacon of Pndapetzim promptly reimposes the restrictions, saying he was doing it because VartanM had appealed the block (the block that was invalidly imposed by timed-out restrictions!), and giving the renewed restrictions an unlimited (unbelievable!) timespan. Blatant bias, blatant collusion - could a reasonable person consider it as anything but that? Meowy10:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Meow back re:Sivas
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
I agree with you here. Ideally, I would like to write a good, well-rounded article that covers more aspects of the city's history. In the meantime, though, I think that the massacre - although significant - is perhaps dominating the article more than necessary. I'll give it a trim; let me know what you think. Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you about the pictures. It turns out that my picture is indeed the same one as the one on Osseman's site. I'll upload it and a couple of others anyway... Kafka Liz (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Voilà. I don't know how interested you'll be in the inscriptions, but there they are. I've got one more - a relief of the world leaders in 1914-1915 - but I need to crop someone out of it before I put it up. Kafka Liz (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Meowy. Liz and I were certainly aware that the label on the church sculpture was disingenuous. Thus seems to be the case with most Armenian things in Turkey today. I have understood from our previous interactions that you have access to a good library. Consider looking at the introduction to Anthony Bryer's Post-Byzantine Monuments of the Pontos, where the author attributes the church sculpture's companion piece, a group portrait of the leaders of the Central Powers, to an Armenian sculptor working in 1914 or 1915. Thought you might like to know. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your and Liz's interest - I'm looking forward to seeing this group portrait sculpture. When you say "companion piece", do you mean you think they were part of the same object, or were they just next to each other in the museum. Alas I don't have access to a good library - I just try to make the best use of the few times I do have access to one. So I haven't seen Post-Byzantine Monuments of the Pontos - but I'll make a mental note to look for it whenever I have the chance. I wonder if the 2-10/1970 reference number painted on the relief is the date it was entered into the collection (though I don't think the museum itself is as old as the 1970s). Meowy15:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
By "companion piece" I mean that they were next to each other, though they are plausibly of about the same age. I confess that since I first learned of these sculptures, prior to my last trip to Turkey in 2007, I have had a difficult time imagining a context for either of them. Somebody recalled the Bryer book, let me see if I can get it back and scan a few pages. Aramgar (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
...and here is the other picture I was talking about. I'll see if I can't whip up a .pdf of the relevant information from the Bryer book. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks for the advice. I must confess, your words and the experience that you share sound intimidating to us new users. What good are our efforts if other users with certain privileges are able to overturn them? I thank you for the invite on the Khorenats'i page but I'm finding it rather interesting in standing by the sidelines while all the parties work out the details. I will perhaps learn a great deal just by observing than actually participating in those discussions. --The Diamond Apex (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The provenance is lost in the mist of time, emotions, fluffy Van cats, Circassian princesses, long-dead internet forums, and people not knowing about a phrase used in one of Aesop's fables. Meowy15:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Today you first added a [citation needed] to Urartian-Language topic. I thought you just hated the info written in there and wanted to erase it. Than you found needed source to reference it and edited it again. Wanted to thank you for objectivity... You are so kind Nakh12:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
ANI incivility
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
User:Meowy you are under an arbcom restriction the "Azerbaijani Khojaly" section of the genocides in history article or any that relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran mentioned in the arbcom restriction apply. As you have reverted edits to that section twice within a week,[28][29] revert your last revert or face further restrictions. --PBS (talk) (LoA) 15:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Considering our recent past editing history, I am surprised that you are doing something as blatantly hostile as this. Are you not concerned about how your actions could be viewed? Only recently you threatened to block me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive534#Meowy_incivility, saying, "If I was not the target of this abuse and was an impartial third party, I would not hesitate to block any user who used such language who had previously been warned and blocked for such behavior and was under an arbcom restriction for comments in this area" - that statement got this response from another administrator "This whining about petty insults absolutely has to stop. PBS, take this to WP:WQA or better yet, drop it altogether".
As I have said on a number of occasions in the past, I do not recognise both the validity of those particular arbcom restrictions and my placement under those restrictions. I would like to now formally discuss my concerns about the latter point (what I consider to be my invalid placement under those AA2 restrictions) on a suitable administrators board, with the view to having them either lifted or getting a decent and credible explanation of why they were imposed. You can either show a bad-faith attitude and carry out your threat, or be constructive, let me get on with it, and refrain from further actions against me either directly or via a proxy. For myself, I will not make any more edits to articles until this issue is resolved one way or another, which amounts to the same effect as any edit restrictions you could get imposed on me would do. Meowy16:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not asking you to refrain from editing articles, I am asking you not to break the arbcom restrictions that were placed on you and specifically to abide by them in regards to the sections of the genocides in history article that relate to the region of Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran mentioned in the arbcom restriction.
Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.
OK, I will revert my edit and leave the article in a worse state than I found it. Sanctions are meant to protect articles from problematic or disruptive edits, they are not meant to be used to harass, threaten, or censor editors. However, AA2 has been used almost exclusively for the latter purposes. Any administrator who fully reads AA2 and still wants to use it should be ashamed of themselves. Meowy16:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion
I've blocked you for 3 days as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Meowy. In the future please do not use alternate accounts in anyway that can be considered abusive, and especially do not use alternate accounts on anything remotely related to Armenia-Azerbaijan.
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).
I seem to be under continuous harrasement by an administrator named Philip Baird Shearer. I am not Onlyoneanswer, I have no idea who Onlyoneanswer is, and I have at no time engaged in any communication with that editor. Philip Baird Shearer has, within the space of a month, tried to get me blocked three times because I dared to oppose his POV opinions regarding the Armenian Genocide. I was given no chance to defend myself and he didn't even bother to make a checkuser request. What possible reason would I use a sockpuppet for? What gain is there? This is just an attempt by PBS to silence two editors who are opposing his opinions with facts and arguments he cannot refute, and it is a disgraceful abuse of his administrator powers.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
If an administrator wants to block me for personal attacks then I'm fine by that - I stand by every word I said about Philip Baird Shearer, he is beneath contempt. However, I am being accused of something that I did not do, I am being acccused of acting dishonestly - I realise that probably means little to most administrators, (count that as another "personal attack" if you wish) - but in the real world, complaints about wikipedia-style "personal attacks" would just be laughed at, and false accusations like those made by PBS would end in litigation and heavy penalties. I am not Onlyoneanswer, I have no idea who Onlyoneanswer is, and I have at no time engaged in any communication with that editor.
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.
Nobody expects the Wikipedian Inquisition. But really, this is administrator bullying at its worst. TA-ME (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
My apologies for the block, I honestly saw a connection, based on the evidence given and what I found, but it turns out that the sock account was actually someone elses sock as later confirmed by checkuser. The evidence seemed to me to be a strong connection, but turned out to be not related at all. I really don't know what else to say other then I goofed up. I will probably need to take a break from doing sock puppet investigations for a week or two. I hope my mistake has not impacted your plans too much. —— nixeagleemail me06:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I do accept your apology, but I wonder if part of that connection you saw was there because you assumed, since an administrator was making the allegation, it was likely to be true. If an ordinary editor makes a sockpuppet allegation the accused is normally given the time to respond, and there would be checkuser evidence. When you resume doing sock puppet investigations, please make sure accused editors know about the allegations and give them time to reply. Meowy16:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry that you suffered the inconvenience of a block which was unjustified. I have never tried to get a block placed on you because you "dared to oppose his POV opinions regarding the Armenian Genocide", as my POV is that the articles should be accurate and based on reliable sources. I assume what that is what you think as well. I do not think anyone on Wikipeda should be uncivil, I do not think anyone should breach arbcom-restrictions and I do not think that people should use sock puppets. If as you allege I had wanted to get you blocked (because you "dared to oppose his POV opinions regarding the Armenian Genocide"), then you will have to explain why in the section above (#genocides in history) instead of immediately requesting a block, I asked you to abide by the arbcom-restrictions and gave you time to revert out the violation. -- PBS (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
You made an identical sock-pupped allegation against me in the past. I told you at that time I was not that other editor, Onlyoneanswer, and you accepted what I said. So, for this second sockpuppet allegation either you believed I was lying when I said I wasn't Onlyoneanswer or you repeated the same allegation a second time for malicious reasons - either out of spite or to silence myself or Onlyoneanswer. This has been your the third attempt in as many weeks to get me blocked - I don't need to assume good faith if I have strong evidence to believe there was none present in your actions. Meowy16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"You made an identical sock-pupped allegation against me in the past. I told you at that time I was not that other editor, Onlyoneanswer, and you accepted what I said." When and where did I make such an allegation? --PBS (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
A month or two ago an editor involved in the Mehmet Talaat editing made a passing comment on another editor's talk page alleging that Onlyoneanswer was my sockpuppet. I came across the comment by chance, and then replied to that editor (in a separate post) that I was not Onlyoneanswer, and he apologised for making the comment. I can't now locate that comment or my reply. However I had assumed that it was you because you made exactly the same allegation in your report. I will try to look further and locate the comment to see who made the allegation andwhere it was made. If oyu are saying you didn't make it, I'm wondering now if it was Tealwisp who made it. Since I am now uncertain, I withdraw my words that it was you who made that past allegation. Meowy19:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Dear Nixeagle, I fully accept your apology re my sockpuppet blocking mistake, but I wonder if part of that connection you saw was there because you assumed that, since an administrator was making the allegation, it was likely to be true. If an ordinary editor makes a sockpuppet allegation the accused is normally given the time to respond, and there would be checkuser evidence. When you do sock puppet investigations, it would b e good to make sure accused editors actually know about the allegations before giving a verdict, and try to give them enough time to reply. Meowy17:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for accepting my apology. So you understand, I do not look at the reporter when reviewing SPI cases unless the link to the reporter's username is a red link. (we have issues with new accounts/socks trying to implicate other users... usually involving two people that prolifically sock), and very often red linked usernames imply newer accounts. Aside from that I pay no attention to the reporter... which is why my mistake here disturbed me enough to take a break from SPI. I honestly believed the two of you were related without checkuser evidence. (A checkuser is not required in all SPI cases). I think a more effective guard against issues is to check the age/activity of the "master" account, and if its an active editor (as is your case) request a checkuser to double check... but the problem with this approach is that checkusers simply don't check in WP:DUCK cases... which is what I categorized your case into. This is all stuff I'll consider when I get back into sock investigation work again.
I've been told by several checkusers by email that I am more effective and correct then most that have done the work in the past. This is the first time that I have been seriously wrong in over 3 months of work touching over 200 cases. The only way to do this work is to strive to ignore any influence other then the evidence and the patterns at hand. I hope this explanation makes sense to you, if it does not please do ask me questions. :Again thanks for accepting my apology. —— nixeagleemail me17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. I hate to ask you this after the trouble I caused you, but your talk page really could stand archiving. Its a real pain to load this page on a computer with 128MB ram and a 100kb/s connection. Its not quite as bad as WP:ANI (a page I rarely frequent, mainly for this reason), but its close. Let me know if I can assist you or if you have questions. —— nixeagleemail me17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
user:Onlyoneanswer has done you no favours, if I were you I would be interested in knowing who the sock master was, as three people, two independent of each other and an experienced administrator working at checkueser, inferred correctly from the evidence that the account was a sock puppet. Knowing who it was would be a deterrent and make it less likely that this would happen again. --PBS (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't try to wriggle out of your responsibilities. As part of a campaign of harrasement you maliciously made the sockpuppet accusation in order to silence two editors you disagreed with but were unable to oppose using legitimate arguments, and then got more snivelling members (Sandstein) of your little cabal to back up your vendetta. I've no doubt it will happen again - you are an expert at playing the system. Meowy17:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing to "try to wriggle out" of. There is no campaign of harrasement, I have not made any malicious accusations. (Who by the way is the second editor that you think I have "disagreed with but were unable to oppose using legitimate arguments"?) To the best of my recollection I have never spoken to user:Sandstein, or (s)he to me. There is no cabal, there is no vendetta. If you continue to behave as you have recently (flouting the arbcom restrictions that have been placed upon you) then you will almost certainly be blocked again, and it will be down to your behaviour not the actions of an imaginary cabal. --PBS (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I hear an imaginary cabal in Myanmar might be needing some advice on legal matters regarding an ongoing vendetta they are pursuing: some woman there has been flouting the arbcom restrictions placed on her by that nation's administrators. Maybe some of you Wikipedia administrators should make an offer, you lot seem to be the experts at working out how to hang people by starting with only the most trivial of trumped-up charges. Meowy02:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
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).
I have been blocked as part of an ongoing campaign of harrasement by Sandstein, and not for any legitimate reason. It isn't worth wasting more time on this appeal since all Wikipedia admins seem to be a contemptable bunch.
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.
Goshavank
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Meowy I think I will soon try to nominate Gochavank article on wk:fr for consideration as a GA. I however don't have a lot of information on the very last renovation (the famous glass roofs). I was wondering if you would have such information. Sardur (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Goshavank is not a site I have visited so I'm sorry I can't help. Nor did I know about the new roofs so I can't direct you to a wikipedia-suitable source that says anything about them. The glass roofs look awful - was the Armenian Church responsible for placing them there? It seems to be able to get away with doing whatever it wants to historical monuments in the ROA, with nobody daring to oppose its actions (or even criticise them after the event). Meowy07:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for the answer I don't know who's responsible for that, I just know there was a renovation thanks to photographs. I'm really amazed that nothing is available on internet about it (and I did search a lot). Sardur (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal attacks
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
My comments were entirely founded. I wish Wikipedia would not tolerate your actions - administrators like you are the reason behind the growing number of websites that expose Wikipedia as a dark and malevolant place. It is you who has, "essentially", chosen not to get his facts right. Maybe you can start by looking up the definitions for sockpuppet and meatpuppet. And then give me some evidence indicating that The Diamond Apex was either. However, you will not present such evidence because you cannot - it does not exist. That is why my comments were, and continue to be, well founded.
BTW, I like your use of the word "essentially" - it makes it seem that you are correct when actually you are not. A neat trick. I must start to use that word myself. Lets say that, essentially, you are full of it. But before you accuse me of incivility, remember that I am using the word "essentially" - so it actually means that you are not full of it.Meowy18:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Afghans and Chechens
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I still don't see the problem. The Iran-Iraq War infobox lists Arab League Soldiers and volunteers from different Arab countries under Iraq for example and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan is under Iran. The Afghans represented Afghanistan during the war after they were officialy asked to join the conflict by Aliyev. Same with Bassayev and his people.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!20:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
But Afghanistan and Chechnia do not become belligerents just because some elements of their populations were involved in the fighting. Afghanistan and Chechnia were not at war with Armenia at a state level. The Arab League and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan are not belligerents because they are countries, they are belligerents because they are belligerent parties. Meowy20:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I see what you're saying now and I concur. But both parties should be re-listed again, simply change the flag from a national one to the groups they represented.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!20:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
RAA & photographs
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Hi Meowy,
I think your location for Arakelots is correct. It's the same one we've got at the FR article for Arakelots.
It's a loss to the world that you won't allow permissions of your images (which I haven't seen) for Wikipedia. May I ask the sites (churches, etc.) for which you have pictures?
Serouj (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Meowy, I do the editing of the article on Van cat in Russian Wikipedia. I would ask you to give your permission to insert you pic of Van Kedisi pic. I hope to "meet" you again at Van cat page in English Wikipedia.Best wishes.--Zara-arush (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
But I hope you are not intending to use it in a propaganda-style entry like the "Turkish Van". It's maybe about time I grasped the nettle of those Van Cat / "Turkish Van" entries. However, it was thanks to those articles that I knew from the outset that Wikipedia was, essentially, an evil concept. Meowy16:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your permission. I am not going to use anything for propaganda. I have my understanding and I believe that the breed of Vana katu is endangered with all-whitening. I do not know, if you are interested in feline breeding and what you know about feline genetics. W- gene bears nothing good for the cats that were bred by the ancesters and preserved to our times. I am acting here under my own name and numerous people had read my articles both in English and Russian. But I have no idea about who you are and why you are so much interested in participation in Armenian projects in Wikipedia. I do not have more time to study, what you had written or edited here, but the titles implicate that you are too much anxious about. But your attitude to Van cats does not correspond to your sympathy to Armenian culture and history. I will not participate in any propaganda activities, but I will respond to other group's propaganda against for instance Vana katu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zara-arush (talk • contribs) 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC) --Zara-arush (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC) --Zara-arush (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Huh, do we have yet another aspiring "Superior Armenian" on a self-appointed mission to "protect" Armenian culture by imposing his/her personal views onto a particular aspect of it? Wikipedia is not a forum for the spreading of original research, or, in your case, perverse, inane, bordering on insane, theories. The poor Van Cats have enough to deal with already, and don't need the likes of you pushing them even further to the edge of extinction. I have disgust for the "Turkish Van" breeders and their inventions, but they at least are doing it for financial gain. What is your reasoning - you hate Turks so much that you deny the existence of the genuine Van Cat population in Turkey? Meowy01:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Meowy had written: "What is your reasoning - you hate Turks so much that you deny the existence of the genuine Van Cat population in Turkey?" I cannot understand, what makes you think about my "race-hatred against Turks ", as you had written in TUVs article discussion page. How may a man hate natural calamities or acts of God? The Turks are the same natural calamity. The time will pass, and the nature will recover after this natural calamity as it did within the millenia. We know it, and the Turks know it. That's why they try to substitute all that is possible in the land that the Creator named "Partez". The same is with the reconstruction of our churches, when the form of the church is substituted with the form of simple cube that the Armnenians had never used for churches, and inside it is painted with white lime. Or the restoration of Akhtamar Surb Khach Church, which is done so clumsy that it is hardly may be named a reconstruction. The same is with Van cat or "Van'a Gadu", as you named it, forgetting that it is pronounced the same "vana katu". And why should I object to the geneticist, who proved that the genetic signature (haplotype) of TUVs is 1) unique, 2) belongs to the same genetic group as TUAs, Anatoli and random-bred cat population of modern Turkey, Egypt, 3) the TUVs that differentiate from the haplotype of the main group, were imported from Turkey and were Ankara Kedisi mixes. So, this statement is the fruit of your imagination also. Your idea about "Superior Armenian" is also too clumsy, because I do not suffer with inferiority complex to waste my time, thinking in this direction. These are your suppositions, and it means your personal thoughts.
As for the Turks that you are so much worried about:
First they used vana katu-s to tortune the Armenians, then they did all to reduce their number, then they opened this concentration camp for all-white cats, and started to carry on reseach on how the food influences the cat eye color, i.e what food the odd-eyed cats eat that their eyes became odd. And so on.
Any offer to discuss the health and genetics of both TUVs and Van Kedisi you pass over in silence. You reply only with unsupported accusations directed against me. Best wishes. --Zara-arush (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course you don't suffer from an inferiority complex! Maybe I've just coined the phrase, but I sure didn't coin the concept! A Superior Armenian is an individual who thinks himself a cut above the level of mere ordinary Armenians (and odars of course) and who has set himself up to be a guardian of a particular aspect of Armenian culture or history to "protect" those ordinary Armenians (who can't be trusted to think for themselves) from the things that "Superior Armenians" consider to be un-Armenian. But the problem is they do more harm than good, because to maintain their lofty status they have to continually invent or exaggerate new dangers and new enemies. Your wild and unsubstantiated claim that the all-white Van Cats are modern inventions by Turkey, bred by Turks in an attempt to substitute them for the Turkish Van-coloured cats seems to be just such an invention, so wild is the claim, and so contrary is it to actual sources (including Armenian sources) and the reality on the ground. Meowy20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
My dear Mr/Ms Meowy I enjoy our communication more and more. Thanks to you I learn numerous things and refresh, what I lernt, while a student. In search of the source to prove you that I do not mix both complexis I found the first source - Wikipedia article about superiority complex. The first sentense runs: "Superiority complex refers to a subconscious neurotic mechanism of compensation developed by the individual as a result of feelings of inferiority".
That is why I replied you that I do not suffer from inferiority complex. Why, because I am used to work hard all my life and always did my home tasks, when a student. Unfortunately, when I speak with al-white Van Kedisi fanciers and breeders they are used not to comprehend what they read. Please, try to understand, what I say (once more): The red-and-white van-patterned cats originated in the region of Van several thousands years ago, because these two mutations (white-spotting at its maximum degree and red color) happened much earlier than further luxory mutations in cats. The red color in ancient world considered special. For instance, Ancient Egypt - red tom cat - the personification of Ra - sun god. The similar attitude towards red color mutations had the ancient Armenian (you may name them proto-Armenian) tribes (if you dislike just the word Armenians). The color of traditional TUV is named in Armenian "tsirani" - the color of sunrise/dawn. Please, remember that Vahagn was born by "Tsovn Tsirani". "Tsirani" is named not after they color of "tsiran" - apricot, but vice versa. The same color has Karabagh hourse. It has the color that is by mistake is now called "narinj". If we study further, we may find out other examples. Do you wish me go on in research about domestic animals? If you do want, I will consider, you found out the way to cick me out from here, because if I go on in this field, I will need at least other 8 years, because I study cats since 2001.
After the Armenians adopted Christianity, the selective breeding of pagan cult animals became impossible. The cats mates as they wanted. So, even under the conditions that there had not been cats, imported from other regions (or better to say cats of other genetic groups), the color and patterns could be mixed. When the cats became commercial goods that were transported to Europe, other parts of Asia and Russia, the most desired phenotypes were all-white, smoke, deluted, and of course all these with long hair, the murchants paid for this color cats. Those, who bred the cats, started to mix their cats with all-white for export, including Van cats. But the original population had been red van-patterned, otherwise is impossible, based on the rules of genetics.
The problem with all-white cats is in their genetics. I hope you may read yourself about W- gene and its influence on cats, if you do not know about it yet. I mean the scientific articles and reports. Not the popular sources, like the site of Turkish Ministry of Culture or Armenian tour agency. As the oldest group of cats with its genotype that remain in purity these cats are the most healthy breed, if they do not have the foreign groups gene introductions, the genotype of these foreign groups being further from their ancient wild ancestor. It is explained by the degree of domestication in other cat breeds, not by someone's fancy or preferancies. Uf! Thanks for your attention, if you managed to read to the end my so-long explanation. Best wishes, "we all learnt something and somehow".--Zara-arush (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
One more thing, if you did not read the following answer:
Thank you very much for your explanations. I do not know Turkish, thus I understood only "Van" and that the Turkish archeologist found a cat skull in some fortress in Van. As well as that they were going to do DNA analysis to find out if the sceleton belonged to Van cat. If you know Turkish, may you be helpful with the interpretation of what it means: "to bite someone at ankle"? I cannot find the answer for years. Thank you in advance.--Zara-arush (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
The article is in English, I have a photocopy of it somewhere and will try to locate it. There is no such thing as DNA proof of "Van Cat-ness", anymore than there is DNA proof of Armenian-ness! Meowy16:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again, I will correct myself, when mention the place the next time. I managed to have the report on Bian Kedi. Also I'll be thankful, if you help with the translation or better interpreting of the proverb. What did Ataturk mean actually? And here is the link to "group-portrait" of the most part of recognized cat breeds, including TUVs [34]I mean the data of the article on feline genotypes.--Zara-arush (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Svante Cornell
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
You may be interested in checking up on my commentary on the Wikipedia Article regarding Svante Cornell, who has been called a hack by Mark Ames, and no one has yet come up with criticisms of Ames' works on this war. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you figure out how to put the links in, check the grammar, etc. Once it's good to go, I'm putting this in the article:
Since Svante Cornell's recent article on the War in South Ossetia, he has come under heavy criticism. Peter LaVelle, who currently works for Russia Today but has worked for Radio Free Europe in the past called Svante Cornell "Saakashvili's Lipstick Artist".(LINK)
Mark Ames, an independent journalist covering the War in South Ossetia for the The Nation, stated that Svante Cornell's writing was hysterical and accused Svante Cornell of wanting to restart the Cold War with Russia for Cornell's financial gain. (LINK) In addition Ames criticized the Silk Road Studies for previously taking bribe money from Kazakstan's government. (LINK) Mark Ames is a fierce Putin critic whose paper was kicked out of Moscow(LINK).
Svante Cornell stated that "Russia shuts out the international community". (LINK) However, with the exception of Georgia, no country has suspended Diplomatic Relations with Russia over this war, and one country does not count as an international community."
Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
You've had enough warnings and blocks about civility to know better. This edit was not acceptable, regardless of your prior disputes with the editor in question; please apologise to dab. Thank you. Fences&Windows16:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me, but my comment was in response to dab calling other editors "kids" (and worse)! I was justified in calling such language childish, and characterising dab's continuous and unchecked production of such language as like that of a spoilt brat. However, I will make an apology if dab is also asked to make an apology for calling editors "kids". I expect you to place a request to that effect to his talk page. If you are unwilling, then you seem to be practicing double standards. Maybe it is time to compile a list of examples of dab's use of offensive language. It will be a long one. Meowy16:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I think there already has been such a case, and he was asked to moderate his language. But he has not moderated it - just about every post he makes contains condescending insults. It would not matter so much if he were just an ordinary editor, but he is an administrator. Yet the other admins seem to have given him an endless supply of get-out-of-jail-free cards. Meowy16:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Worse, he was admonished by ArbCom for improper use of the admin rollback tool among other things yet just now he threatened to use his admin tools to forcefully settle a dispute he initiated.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!16:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Dab's use of "kids" was tactless, but reading your response in isolation it was a personal attack. Civility is what counts at all times, regardless of provocation. Why not take the high moral ground? I have not been following the dispute, and I won't, but if dbachmann's conduct is an issue then take it to the etiquette noticeboard and if that doesn't resolve matters then open an RFC. Fences&Windows18:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
My response was not intended to be read in isolation, it was intended to be read within the immediate context of dab's "kids" comment, and within the wider context of dab's well known habit of sprinkling his posts with comments based on the alleged nationality / ethnicity / age / intelligence / editing motives of other editors. Given that you seem to have misread my response - seeing it as a stand-alone comment - and that you are not asking dab to apologise for his "kids" comment - a comment written by an administrator that was not written as a response but intended to prompt a response - I think the matter of my apology cannot proceed further. Meowy20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Written by dab, all within the last few days:
"You can be sure that a bunch of teenagers of ethnicity Y will turn the article on X into a quagmire about Y ethnic pride."
"Are Sri Lankans generally more peaceful? Or, less peaceful so they skip the stage of puerile bickering and grab their guns right away?"
"The project was WP:OWNed by a handful of jerks with a high-school level idea of the concept of a dictionary"
"Only way forward here is quite clearly to ban the patriot trolls"
"If you are an Armenain patriot, please resign yourself to editing articles about Italian operas or some other topic where your judgement is not clouded by your primal sentiments."
"Do everyone a favour and begin showing some intellectual honesty"
"Why don't you stuff your "suggestions" and your general prancing about and let the grown-ups clean up the mess the teenage patriots have made." Meowy20:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
If his comments are an issue - which they seem to be - then raise an RFC about it, rather than replying in kind. Nationalist POV warring is frustrating for admins to deal with, but he should know better. But my comment was about your conduct; uncivil comments are never justifiable by saying "he started it". If you don't recognise that, you'll likely receive further blocks. I'm stepping away from this issue now. Fences&Windows00:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I seemed to remember Meowy as a good editor. I must have confused them.
My comments were exactly appropriate to the problem at hand, and they were not even addressed at Meowy, whom I would have expected to help protect the article against the patriotic trolling.
Meowy, here is a newsflash for you:
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. This includes a lot of people who have no clue, or who even want to maliciously modify content. Most people, indeed most admins, prefer to look the other way. I have made a habit of addressing these issues in the spirit of WP:SPADE. If you dislike my calling the goings on at the Armenia related article "trolling by teenage patriots", perhaps you could consider helping Wikipedia in defending the articles against the teenage patriot trolls instead of shooting the messenger pointing out that they are under attack. --dab(𒁳)13:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Dab has a point here. He does a lot of work regarding the real flashpoints of contention around here, like regional and ethnic disputes and the like. I tend to limit myself more exclusively to religious topics these days, and I hate to say that it is probably a bit less contentious there than it is in the regional and ethnic disputes. Particularly for topics relating to areas and subjects which are themselves points of bitter controversy, there are a number of editors who seek to add only their POV to the content, whether it really deserves to be here or not. I myself haven't checked on one recent dispute, Moses of Chorene, myself, because other than I think being the one to add the Category:Doctors of the Church to the article, I don't know a bloody thing about the subject. It is a topic of contention, however, and I think knowledgable editors are probably more than welcome.
To make the comment I first came here to make, you had said elsewhere that doing requisite sourcing might require citing every sentence in an article. I came here to say that, in fact, such sourcing is often the case. Sometimes we even have to go further than that. Intelligent design at one point had I think about a dozen footnotes for just the first sentence. Particularly for contentious topics, that degree of referencing is often required. I don't like it myself, but sometimes that's what has to be done. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that any of dab's comments were specifically addressed to me. I just posted them with the intention of illustrating some examples of the use of language that was in my mind when I made that reply to his "kids" comment. I don't think that sort of language helps calm things down - it inflames things further and is an oversimplification of the problem. Dabs comments are at the extreme end of the way Wikipedia administrators seem to respond to conflicts within articles that deal with what might be called nationalistic disputes. The response from you administrators seems to be to look in disgust at these "ethnics" (with their long memories, and short tempers, and their ability to make disputes out of the most trivial issues) who are messing up your Wikipedia. Rather than seeking to deal with individual points on an article-by-article basis, administrators paint everyone with the same brush and resort to name calling and imposing heavy-handed editing restrictions.
The long-term response is to recognise that Wikipedia as it is currently set up is a gift to the propagandist and then start to consider ways of reforming Wikipedia. Wikipedia left the door wide open - so Wikipedia has only itself to blame if undesirables walk through that door and try to take up residence.
BTW, I don't see any "teenage patriot trolls" active in the Moses of Chorene article. What I see is a lot of people who have dug trenches for their individual opinions and now can't move out of them. One decent expert on the subject could sweep all those trenches away by giving an impartial analysis of the various sources and their status. But the only editor there who came close to being that expert (The Diamond Apex) was banned as a result of a trumped-up sockpuppet allegation. Meowy17:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow - would you look at this fanboy posting by Moreschi about Dbachmann [35]"Dieter is, I need hardly say, one of our most prolific contributors ever, and one of our finest in the continued battle for encyclopedicity and against dreck: in fact, when some learned academic comes to write the history of our early years, I am sure he will find a respected space in his tome for Dieter Bachmann".Meowy17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I am very shocked and offended by your use of language in the Highland talkpage in which you said:
We also have to consider the plight of the population of Azerbaijan. They have a medical condition that's rather like a severe nut allergy. At the sight of a map showing the borders of Nagorno Karabakh their necks start to swell up, then they begin to involuntarily jump up and down as if possessed, arms swinging about wildly. If the situation is not quickly relieved by removing the map, their heads will quite literally explode! Many medical papers have been written about this unfortunate condition, but a yet no definitive cure has been found. The ingestion of a very large dose of democracy is known to alleviate the symptoms, but this is something the afflicted are reluctant to undergo because of cultural reasons.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
There is no detailed information about his life on Varag most probably because he didn't want it to be mentioned. But in his works he describes the place he lived as "ruins like a cave". And there is another detail: Zernebad Waters. He lived near here. I didn't see the place so I can't describe it exactly.
He went there after his quarrel-like experience with Mustafa Kemal. He continued to teach his students there on the Mountain and later he was arrested and exiled. He was charged of involving in the revolt led by Şeyh Said although he wasn't.
Thanks for that information. I'm over-simplyfying the geography a bit, but the highest part of Varag mountain is divided into two ridges (their modern mames are Buyuk Erek and Kucuk Erek), between which there is an area of flat ground almost at the same height as the lower of the two ridges. Here there is located the ruins of a monastery called "upper Varag". It is the only ruined monastery that is very high up on the mountain (all the other monasteries were located near villages on the lower slopes of the mountain) so I was assuming that is where he lived. It is a very dramatic and impressive location, with views over the entire plain of Van and the lake. I haven't heard the name "Zernebad". In springtime there is a small pond of water near the ruins which is called "Tepe Goleti", lower down the valley it becomes a little river, called "Harabe Deresi" - these are the modern, Turkish, names of course - and close to bottom of the valley are the ruins of a small water-mill. Meowy16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Can you please help out on the Duduk page. These certain editors and removing Armenian info, and putting Turkish origins. This has been reverted also by Eupator and others. Please help out. Non-Armenians even know the Armenian origins of Duduk, specially from 2000 movie Gladiator by Gasparyan. Monlonet (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Did you know that every single khachkar in the world is or was Caucasian Albanian? At least that's what a couple of editors want to prove. I've reverted their vandalism twice but am aware that I'm subject to those farcical AA/AA2 revert restrictions. I think this recent onslaught might have something to do with the Azerbaijani website Today.Az asking their readers to "correct" Armenia/Azerbaijan-related articles.[36]TA-ME (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on the khatchkar article. Today.az/Day.az are always producing such reports - that one looks to be just a rewrite of one from a couple of months ago (they haven't even bothered to change all the examples of "day.az" in it to their new name of "today.az"). Meowy13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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).
I do not understand why I have been blocked? I have been blocked under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement - but the article and the edits have nothing to do with Armenia! I am not limited to one revert per page per week for every Wikipedia article, only for articles that fall under AA2. The Eurovision article does not fall under AA2, neither do the Eurovision and the WikiProject Eurovision talk pages, where Camaron claims I have breached AA2 by failing to assume good faith. Where is the word "Armenia" mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eurovision_Song_Contest_2009#Dealing_with_criticism_and_controversy and what has any of that discussion got to do with Armenia? I've never mentioned Armenia in any of these postings that Camaron has used as evidence of AA2 breaches. All of the edits were simply concerned with the unjustified insertion of pov tags into Eurovision articles, and nothing more than that. Camaron can't claim that the tags themselves are connected to Armenia-related content because he has point-blank refused to say why the tags are there! I also don't know why they are there!! The complainant, Camaron, has been refusing to state what he thinks is actually wrong with the articles that would justify the use of these tags. My edits and comments were to remove the unjustfied tags, and to ask Camaron to state on the articles' talk pages a reason why the tags should be there if he wants to put them back. But rather than simply give a reason for inserting the tags, he has trawled through every edit I have made for the past few months, seeking to contrive some way to get me banned. This is nothing more than bullying by an administrator and an abuse of AA2 remedies. And all the tags still remain unjustified.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Smashville, as is to be exected of a Wikipedia administrator, is behaving like a slimy creature with no backbone. He is also displaying another defining characteristic of slimy creatures - their bad eyesight: WP:IAR trumps this. I have given a series of good reasons why the reason for this block is completely without substance. So least go through the motions before rejecting my appeal! Some months ago, I suggested that Wikipedia administrators should be lending their services to the regime of a certain southeast Asian country that was needing some advice on legal matters regarding an ongoing vendetta they were pursuing. I now know why that suggestion was not taken up - seems that Burma is just far too democratic for Wikipeda administrators: over there they still have time-consuming show trials with a pretense of legality, rather than just doing it the Wikipedia way (a quick walk out back, ending with a bullet to the head).
Decline reason:
I agree that Smashville's review was a bit of a time-waster. Still, this unblock request is without merit. You claim the edits on Eurovision Song Contest 2009 are not related to the AA2 case? It's obvious that they are: the tag was immediately preceding a section on Armenia-Azerbaijan controversy that you have been involved in editing. The tag tended to criticize that material -- yes, along with other material -- so this is definitely covered by the sanctions. Your violations of WP:AGF documented in the Arbcom Enforcement request are similarly related to AA2. The admin who blocked you discounted your 1 revert-per-week violation at Azerbaijan but I still want to point out that I do find that of concern also. The duration is justified given your track record. Finally, your specific edit restriction (#1 in the list) says you are on 1-revert-per-week restriction, period, it doesn't say only on Armenia/Azerbaijan-related articles: [37]. Finally, let me point out that your comments about Smashville, however provoked, are a further violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. So, no, I don't see that there's any real reason to reconsider this block. Mangojuicetalk03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
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.
I guess I've only myself to blame. I probably gave Camaron the idea to use AA2 to block me. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASandstein&diff=309257017&oldid=309154219"AA2 is so vague and so badly drafted, and has had so many versions and rewrites, and is so intellectually and morally hollow, that you can read into it whatever you wish, Using AA2 it would be quite feasable for an editor to be given a lifetime ban for making 3 reverts on an article about a Greek football team, if an administrator had a mind to do it". Greece is in UEFA, so is Armenia, so an article about a Greek team is "Armenia-related" (or Turkey, or Azerbaijan related). Armenia is in the Eurovision competition, so the article is "Armenia-related". Meowy02:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
In my short interaction with him, I discovered that he was just made an administrator few days before he blocked you. Maybe he was feeling pressured to be tough. Is there is a probation period for the wiki administrators like a certain numbers of blocks they issue per month? Anyway I felt that you were blocked because you were openly opposing the other administrator, so the other one blocked you. "You mess with one of us, you mess with all of us" kinda deal. If you were to write a complaint about both of them, I will gladly sign under it. Lida Vorig (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Browse through any decent thesaurus, and you will find alongside "Wikipedia administrator" words like "unsavory", "foul", "nasty", "malonourous", "obnoxious", "offensive", "objectionable", "odious", "loathsome", "nausious", "slimy", "disliked". Probably the last but one is the most apt. Slimy creatures have very thin skins and no backbone: the defining characteristic of a Wikipedia administrator is a sense of self-superiority, with a lack of anything substantial to support that sense, and a skin so thin and sensitive that the least bit of criticism, however justified, needs to be responded to as if it were the prelude to a palace coup. And slimy creatures always stick together - on their own they quickly dry out and die. Meowy00:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've extended your block until Nov 1st 2009 due to checkuser evidence which clearly shows that you've been editing as Tamamtamamtamam (talk·contribs) and as an IP since you were blocked on Aug. 29th.. Please don't continue to do this sort of thing. --Versageek06:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Khachkar article
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Well, first of all I couldn't do it (I don't speak azeri). And second, I don't think it will be allowed to stand without being redirected... Sardur (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Foreign names
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The author can be somewhat difficult to work with, and sometimes has difficulty interpreting sources. In the spirit of avoiding the appearance of personal attacks, I'll leave it at that. I've got about ten different things I want to be working on, and I'm of two minds about whether I ought to get involved here. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Bridge of Ani
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks. The "restoration" of the Tigran Honents church is just another stage in the destruction of Ani. That bridge sketch is actually from a propaganda book published by Karamagarali in the 1990s. The real bridge had a completely different and far more sophisiticated design than that Mostar bridge-style "Turkification". Meowy21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Meowy. I just reverted an undiscussed redirect here and wanted to ask if you could help keep an eye on the discussion (assuming, of course, that some takes place). Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Long time ago I was going to add some more material to that entry - but didn't ever get round to doing it. :( Meowy00:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
That was my plan too. I had three or four books from the library and then never got around to it. The books are long since returned, and it would be difficult at this point to get them again. :/ Kafka Liz (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I was able to find several articles on Jstor that were about the cathedral - which I've yet to read. So maybe I should make this the prompting I need to start! Meowy02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello there, I'm thinking that for we have to tear down 70-80% of the material on the Van Resistance article and salvage whatever we can. I personally have my reservations against some of the sources which are used, most notably Stanford Shaw and Edward J. Erickson, both of whom deny that the Armenian Genocide took place. The Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia article on the resistance at Van is of very of good quality, but I also have the Van/Vaspurakan volume edited by Richard G. Hovannisian, which includes several sections on demographics and the resistance itself. I'll begin editing once I have more time but I don't think I'll be able to edit the article by myself and I would like to know your opinion on how to salvage the current mess that it is in.
p.s., can you please archive this talk page already?! :)
A lot of the material was added by Seemsclose, who seemed to have wanted to add more, and more, and more stuff just because it existed in books, and not because it really added anything to an encyclopaedia-type article. It ended up making the whole article confused and almost unreadable. But parts of his additions were interesting - I didn't know about the refugee camp in Iraq for example (there is more info about it from the "The Baqubah Refugee Camp" link on the Bakubah entry) - so we need to be careful about what to loose. Meowy17:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Christmas
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Looking through my bedroom window, out into the moonlight and the unending smoke-colored snow, I could see the lights in the windows of all the other houses on our hill and hear the music rising from them up the long, steady falling night. I turned the gas down, I got into bed. I said some words to the close and holy darkness, and then I slept. — Dylan Thomas, A Child's Christmas in Wales
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have removed the disputed content please attempt to either request a comment as regards this content to bring the issue to a wider audience or attempt to find a consensus between the involvd editors, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Do you want to.
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for caring. But I think he will just leave the discussion - so it is not worthwhile doing anything unless he has a record of making aggressively uncivil posts on lots of articles. Meowy01:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Its not ok, I made a report about his comments at editor assistance and have left him a warning on his talkpage, any further instances of such comments will result in further reports, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement topic ban
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
This is to inform you that, for the reasons explained at WP:AE, under the authority of WP:ARBAA2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, you are indefinitely banned from commenting on any arbitration enforcement request (on any page) related to Armenia or Azerbaijan where you are not either the requesting editor or the subject of the request. Sandstein 19:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
"The unique selling point of Wikipedia is its usefulness in the dissemination of lies and propaganda, and those that run Wikipedia seem happy for that to remain the case". ...and will block anyone who is brave enough to point it out. Meowy03:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
But there is a big flaw in Sandstein's thinking. In what way does his "indefinite ban" stop me from commenting on the fact that Wikipedia is a tool for propagandists, and administrators seem intellectually and morally incapable of doing anything about it? Meowy03:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The next time you claim propaganda etc., you should tell why it has to do with the report in question. In that case, it was Neftchi insertion of propaganda and revert warring on it. See here my reply to the material which was initialy inserted by Brandmeister which he wrongly pretended to be backed by 3rd party source, which of course was not accurate. Administrators are to lazy to check the cause of the revert warring, so your message came as if it was off-topic when it concerned the cause of the revert warring in the article Azerbaijani culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papabu (talk • contribs) 19:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
However, a good part of what I said was off-topic, though it would be on-topic if it were in a discussion of Wikipedia's more dangerous failings (but a decent discussion of Wikipedia's failings would probably be impossible on Wikipedia!). Meowy19:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Oh, I changed the "near to the old museum" wording, even though the Turkish website uses that wording. Actually the new museum is built as an extension of the old museum building, there are not two buildings and all the old museum is still there (but rather dwarfed by the huge new building). Meowy22:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
You have had many opportunities to stop edit warring and battle zone behavior. Your block this time is one year.[41] The last block was a month, and you socked to evade that one. JehochmanTalk13:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow... such a pity, man :(. You are too temper, aren't you?! But still you can help discuss issues, right? I've just opened a discussion on adding a paragraph to the Armenian Genocide article: Patriocide. I'd be glad to see you participating in it. Thanks Aregakn (talk) 00:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I cannot find any sources that directly address this author (only the book he co-wrote). I find this subject of this article to not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Meowy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:3RR. --Drat (Talk) 02:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm Sardur from wiki fr. I rearranged the Ani page on Commons (I hope I didn't make any mistake). There's still one pic from the category that I can't identify : Image:Ruins in Ani 1.JPG. Do you know what it is ? Btw, congrats for the website 
Thanks for uploading Image:Katchaznouni biography p236.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[10]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mastara_greek_inscription.jpg){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
I don't know who's responsible for that, I just know there was a renovation thanks to photographs. I'm really amazed that nothing is available on internet about it (and I did search a lot). Sardur (talk) 10:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
But I already said all I had to say on that talk page. Sardur (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
