User talk:Steverci

Hi Steverci! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article (and its history) to User:Steverci/List of Bagratuni rulers of Armenia. Regards, GiantSnowman 17:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I very much would like an explanation of this edit[1] where you completely changed the meaning. I also note that you don't use WP:Edit summaries to explain your edits, which means that they may be reverted simply because editors don't know why you are making changes. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the List of military disasters you have twice added the unsourced and historically incorrect statement, "Armenian victory", concerning the Battle of Avarayr in 451. Sources stating Sassanid victory;[2],[3],[4] --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only impersonating a bot, but impersonating an extinct bot. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ashot Ghulian

added a link pointing to Khndzristan

Poghos Bek-Pirumyan

added a link pointing to Karakilisa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your link [5] does not really help. You'll know what i mean when you actually take a look on it yourself instead of just writing something and linking it to me. Anything more to say? --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was giving you yet more examples. I also pointed to WP:OPENPARA. Unless you want to make an argument that her Iranian ancestry is notable (it isn't), please don't revert my edit again. --Steverci (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why would it not be notable? this ridiculousness is from a person who has tried to hide the Iranian origins/customs of articles such as Tiridates I. I guess Ashkhen is your next target? By the way, do NOT remove sourced information on that article. You, who know the rules so well should know that. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you want to revert something, at least discuss about it here first. And before you begin to think negative about me, know that i have created several Armenian articles (some better than others [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]), so i have nothing against you and neither am i trying to disrupt Armenian-related articles. I am saying that because i have been accused of such ridiculous things a few times. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:HistoryofIran I wasn't thinking anything negative about you at all. I was actually close to telling you that I respect you and hope you don't take this personal or anything.

Has she done anything notable as an Alan princess? How is her background relevant to her life? When it's generally just trivial then it's not notable.

When I said I read the twenty pages I was referring to the online page that has all twenty on it. If you can point me to the part where it says he implemented Iranian customs I have no problem keeping it. And I thought we had already come to the conclusion he had Armenian ancestry?

I had actually had a similar dispute as yours with the Bagrationi dynasty members before. The Georgian users do their best to remove any mention of the fact the dynasty was Armenian at all, along with the fact one third of noble families in Georgia were Armenian. It's also worth sharing that the original Iberians were to Armenians as Austrians are to Germans, and Georgians came about as a result of ethnic mixing and language distortion in Iberia according to a page in The Georgian Chronicles that is always censored in Georgia, but that's another story. As I looked at other royalty articles and saw that ethnicity is rarely considered a big deal and is often overshadowed by nationality, I stopped arguing for it as much and decided to have that outlook. So the Bagrat dynasty is an Armenian family that also ruled Georgia and the Arsacid dynasty is a Parthian family that also ruled Armenia. Where is the logic in Armenian background being overshadowed in both? That is what I have been thinking this whole time. --Steverci (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I don't know what you're thinking, that's why i wrote that to you. But I'm glad to hear that. Forget it about the Ashkhen article by the way, do as you like - I had exams today so i am pretty tired and really can't use my energy one this, but it doesn't mean, to be honest I don't really care if it's in the lead or not. To best honest, I just thought you were one of those who liked to make disruptive edits, well that's clearly stupid of me thinking, and I'm glad that i was wrong.

- About the source in the Tiridates I article, i have just checked it through and it says something about a reform/reorganizing by Tiridates, but that's clearly the wrong source, I must have added the wrong one, but i can't really bother finding it right now, so you're free to delete it.

- Yeah, i had forgot that about the distant Armenian ancestry, but it is important to remember that it was his great-grandmother that was an Armenian, which doesn't mean that we can add the "1st-Armenian people" category in the article, but instead add the "People of Armenian descent" category. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually both of Vonones II's known grandparents had Armenian ancestry. Lots of nobles had mixed Greek/Iranian/Armenian background, it'd be impossible to give an accurate percent. People of ________ descent articles are meant for diaspora which isn't appropriate in Tiridates' case. Anyway, I hope we can be friends and good luck on your exams. --Steverci (talk) 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, since he was an Iranian figure, that's why the "1st-Iranian people" category should stay, while his other origins should be written as "People of xxx descent". No ruler was of pure origins. You don't see figures such as Ismail I being called a Greek because he had Greek descent, or Bahram V being called a Jew because his mother was Jewish, etc.

I hope that too, and thank you - if you ever was in search of sources about Late Antiquity-Armenia, come pay me a visit on my talk page. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was an Armenian figure obviously because he was King of Armenia. His nationality was Armenian. William the Conqueror is called an English of French descent, so if your arguing Tiridates had too little Armenian background then that means your saying a 'descent' category isn't accurate. Ismail wasn't a Greek citizen and Bahram was a Zoroastrianist but that isn't listed either. And thanks, appreciate it! --Steverci (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither was Tiridates a Armenian citizen and nationality is a modern term, plus Armenia was under OCCUPATION (writing it with caps-lock to make you focus on that word) by a Parthian king. You don't see dynasties such as the Seljuqs being called for Iranians, even when they practiced many Iranian customs and spoke Persian. Then there is Tiridates I, who was a Parthian Zoroastrian priest who is not reported to even practice Armenian customs and speak the language, yet he should be called an Armenian? --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:HistoryofIran Sorry, this slipped my mind. Armenia did not lose its independence though, as it stood from 331 BC to 428 AD. There was just had a change in leadership. Client state is a metaphorical status. This is very similar to William the Conqueror not actually conquering England for France. By the way, William never bothered to learn English, lived nearly his whole life in France, enforced French customs and treated Englishmen horribly, and he is still categorized as English. So even if Tiridates really didn't practice Armenian customs, that's not a good argument. Also, Napoleon had no French ancestry and has all French categories besides one saying he had Italian ancestry. --Steverci (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're comparing two European figures with a Middle Eastern one, why not do it with a Middle Eastern one instead? by the way, I'm sorry, but seriously? Napeleon? that's a bad example. It actually can't even be used as an example. Plus there are no reliable sources that call Tiridates an Armenian. And if there is (which i am 99% there isn't), i could always counter it with several reliable sources which talk about his Iranian ways and also about many other members of the Arsacid dynasty of Armenia. Not to forget the heavy Iranian influence they spread in Armenia. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:HistoryofIran It's all the same, I'm just going by what I know. Please don't go back in circles, I just said why with the William example why even if Tiridates was an Iranophile with no Armenian ancestry that it doesn't make him less of a national Armenian. And you put the same Iran Encyclopedia link back but I've looked it over for a third time and still can't find mention of Tiridates bringing in Iranian customs. In fact, I noticed the use of the word "probably" a lot; do they know what they're talking about? If you can't quote that line from the book then please stop. --Steverci (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm.. yes it does, because he was simply not an Armenian no matter how you want to use the word. By using your logic we would need to the same on the Seljuqs, Ghaznavids and many others. By the way, here is the quote: "The practice, like the term, was unquestionably of Iranian origin and was probably introduced when Tiridates I and his immediate successors reorganized the Armenian court." And if you look on the rest of the article, you will see various Iranian offices/customs/words which the Arsacids had brought to Armenia. That's your question answered. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:HistoryofIran The Seljuqs were a Turkic dynasty in a Turkic state so I don't know what you're saying there. The Ghaznavids on the other hand support me. It's a Turkic mamluk dynasty ruling Persia, and all of its monarchs have 10th-12th century Iranian people categories. You see it's not about region. I am citing William the Conqueror because his article is featured, so we know the categories are being used right, and because it's the perfect example for this case because he brought in French governors and customs there was basically nothing English about him besides his title, and that's how he is remembered. I feel like this is getting unproductive and you are going in circles now and hope you will realize that a category meant for modern diaspora people is not going to work here and even if Tiridates loved everything Parthian and didn't care about Armenian culture at all (which in William's case is fact if you switch Parthian with French and Armenian with English) that he is still an Armenian by nationality if nothing else. And in case I have to repeat myself again, Armenia did not cease being a nation, the Arsacids just usurped the Artaxiads, just like how England didn't cease to exist as a state when the Normans conquered it.

As I recently said, I now realized that this article says "probably" and guesses that the customs could have been implemented by Tiridates' successors. In other words this is not a fact presented by an academic historian, but an opinion given by a group of Iranian nationalist college students. --Steverci (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what? you mentioned all the Ghaznavid monarchs, but yet linked the category of their viziers. Care to explain what you mean? since i did not understand that.

Iranian nationalist college students? since when did the historian M. L. Chaumont become "a group of Iranian nationalist college students"? You should really read the article properly before you say such ridiculous things, plus the sentence i mentioned did not say "probably". Even if it did that does make it unreliable. Say whatever you want, but Iranica is reliable, you should know that, since you know the rules so well (which means that you should which source is reliable and which one is not). Over half of the 321 articles i have created use Iranica as a source, one of them even being nominated as a good article, so please drop those ridiculous claims. --Mossadegh-e Mihan-dust (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:HistoryofIran It doesn't really matter because all of those articles are stubs anyway. Can you show me a good or featured article that uses your category outlook? I showed you a featured one, and we should go by that.

Because ultimately this is an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, meaning it collects sourced material and puts it together but on it's own is not a reliable source. Chaumont does not give a source and even states it is just a guess of his own, saying "probably" introduced by Tiridates, but its just a guess. Most of the Parthian influence in Armenia that article talks about anyway is about religious customs that happened long after Tiridates' time. --Steverci (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are not stubs, and they do not have to be a featured article to be reliable. It is not a guess, Chaumont is a historian, his words are reliable, whether you like it or not. And for the 100th time, he does not say probably and even if he did it is still reliable. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:HistoryofIran We're both busy college students and I don't really want to spend much more time saying the same thing again and again, so please take a good look at Category:People of Armenian descent and realize it is meant to hold subcategories, not articles, for modern diaspora people. This is the same with all People of * descent categories, with the exception of a few who aren't correctly categorized. Tiridates the only person there. Please understand this is incorrect so I don't have to waste the time filling out a request for a third party to point this out. As for the Iranian customs, you should expand what exactly these customs are, because it tells the reader nothing otherwise. I also think it should be moved to the body and not header, because this is ultimately an educated guess (albeit by an expert), not a historical fact. --Steverci (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to disagree with you. First of all, minority appellations cannot claim to be universal alternatives for a toponym; they might have their contextual use, but nothing beyond that. Secondly, in the lifetime of the people concerned (i.e. in the Russian imperial era), the city was officially known as Shusha, and any Russian administrative records from that period will attest to that. Parishan (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like sushi. Instead of 1915 insurgency in the Ottoman Empire better delete User:Steverci and continue with one of your other user names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.196.207.39 (talk) 08:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale is irrelevant. WP:NOTABLOG appropriate for khash.org. Please bring back the previous revision. --Esc2003 (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is not a place for someone's travel blog about food. The link contributes nothing and web hosts are not allowed. --Steverci (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thestar.com is Toronto Star's website. It is not a blog. Bring it back. --Esc2003 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Smith is just a journalist, not a food expert. She has zero qualification to say anything credible about khash. It's clear you want her blog on the page because he ignorantly called the food Azeri, but in doing so she self-defeated her credibility by taking an UNDUE POV for a widely recognized Armenian food. Also, I'm reporting you for not heeding the admin's warning. --Steverci (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the khash.org? Is it a reliable source? Huh? You must be kidding! --Esc2003 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinite topic ban from topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as ethnic conflicts related to Turkey, all broadly construed

You have been sanctioned per the reasons discussed in this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at aa#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I've had a look through your recent contribs and I'm happy to go with an indefinite 1RR for all pages related to Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as ethnic conflicts related to Turkey. After three months leave me another message on my talk page and we can look into removing the restriction, though the appeals procedure is the same as above. I'll also just remind you that any misconduct in this topic area is likely to result in a topic ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mutt Lunker: I put the photos in chronological order and removed an extra photo that was previously hidden. --Steverci (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I assume you are referring to your edits at Scottish people: ok but that would have been most useful in the edit summaries for everyone else interested in the article, so could you add to the talk page to explain the edits? The picture that you removed, of Billy Connolly, was previously visible. Such edits run the risk of being reverted if the purpose is unclear. I wasn't just referring to this article by the way as you seem to rarely provide a summary for your edits. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the 1948 Arab–Israeli War page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Steverci, well interestingly you blame for POV but reading carefully you are doing same thing even worse here it goes(Unlike you i mentioned Armenia): 1)Avoid stating opinions as facts, 2)Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. In article Lahmachun you state this dish is Armenian however none of the sources state clearly its armenian origin, yes they do say its armenian pizza but they are stating the dish not its origin. Coloradian Has brownie is not of coloradian origin but of dutch as an example. this dish is highly contested between three parties here while universally in Europe its more known as Turkish pizza and USA as Armenian due to the diaspora numbers. I believe we should keep it neutral NPOV and state all three countries as claimants to this dish! have we reached consensus? Agulani (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.

This is regarding Çavuştepe where you clearly are engaing with me in the edit wars. The reason for the change is WP:COMMONNAME the name of the area is Çavuştepe not Haykaberd. Since it is located in Turkey and used by current media as Çavuştepe , Haykaberd maybe an ancient antique name. Going back to your example of Gaul vs France. Should we rename all cities in France to their Gaulic names? Agulani (talk) 06:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could not verify the only quotation you gave to support your point in Talk:Turkish_carpet from my copy of Reed's 1972 book. In fact, the book does not mention Armenian weavers at all, but refers to "Turkish" carpets on p. 8–10 and 43–55. Reed also uses the term "Turkey" synonymously with "Asia minor" (p. 43). Reed does not cite any reference in his book.^[1] There is no point in discussing made-up, fake references.

However, I'd like to find out more about the Armenian carpet weavers in the geographical region of Asia minor. Therefore I'd like to invite you to contribute what you know, supporting your edits with correctly cited, source-verified references. HajjiBaba (talk) 12:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On the Ignacy Łukasiewicz page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinite topic ban from topics related to Armenia

You have been sanctioned due to the misrepresentation of sources, POV pushing and editing logged out to avoid scrutiny brought up in this thread.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steverci, I thought I should probably clarify a few further points.

The further responses from Louis which provided further information (his rebuttal to yours) convinced me that a topic ban was the best course of action to take (and I'd note that it is more limited than the previous one, and the 1RR restriction).

The evidence on my talk page (along with what I've seen from some of the IPs you've been using) shows POV editing. After coming off a topic ban I would expect that you'd ensure your editing was as good as it can be and I'm just not seeing that.

Misrepresentation of sources comes in different forms, in this instance it was this series of edits which shows it.

A few points for clarification, while there is no policy which prevents editing logged out specifically there is a policy which states that you can't edit logged out in order to avoid scrutiny on your main account. While the examples of it aren't recent they add to the pattern of behaviour.

Hope that explains my reasoning a bit better. As I said this topic ban is quite a bit narrower than the previous one, and I'd be willing the remove the 1 revert restriction if you'd like? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm happy for you to continue editing the "The removal of a topic ban" section on my talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your editing to the Welsh People article, I noticed none of your recent edits to Welsh People have an edit summary.
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make.
The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the revision changes.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Irish people, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You have been told time and time again that your array is off the mark and way too wide. Stop that now. The Banner talk 01:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you edit it?, the persons in the pictures are well distributed (models, actress, athletes, scientists) don't delete it.(talk) 17.31:27, 02 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for breaching topic ban from everything related to Armenia [14] on the page List of medieval great powers, you have been blocked from editing for a period of two days. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Hi, second and third Silesian uprising was won by Poles, in the second achieved all the goals, and the third the majority. Eastern front is also a victory, the enemy was Germany not Soviet Union. Polish–Teutonic War (1519–21), Teutonic Order in this war has been defeated and became a fief of the Polish Kingdom. Polish-German War in 1002-1005 Poland was defeated, but wars in 1007–1015 and 1015–1018 was won by Poles, Peace of Bautzen favored Polish side.Kcdlp (talk) 01:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of relying on articles from Wikipedia, please read some sources. As I wrote earlier, in the second Silesian Uprising there has been a ceasefire but the objectives have been fully achieved by Poles, in the third uprising a large majority has been reached. In peace of Bautzen, Poland gained Moravia, Milsko and Lusatia. Moreover, Boleslaw received military aid to Kiev Expedition. Enemy on the eastern front were Germany, that have been defeated and also lost territory. After Polish-Teutonic War, Teutonic Order ceased to exist and the Duchy of Prussia was created, which became a fiefdom of the Kingdom of Poland.Kcdlp (talk) 18:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read any books of these conflicts? or do you know about these conflicts only what is written on wikipedia? I can give you some titles of books, in which is written what I wrote earlier. Only you will have a problem because they are written in Polish, eg.:

Tadeusz Jędruszczak, Górny Śląsk w 1920 r. Drugie powstanie Śląskie in: Historia Polski, T. IV, cz. 1, PAN, Warszawa 1984 (this is about the second Silesian Uprising).

Tadeusz Jędruszczak, Plebiscyt i trzecie powstanie śląskie w: Historia Polski, T.IV, cz.1, PAN, Warszawa 1984 (third Silesian Uprising)

Marian Biskup, "Wojna Pruska", czyli wojna Polski z zakonem krzyżackim z lat 1519-1521 (Polish–Teutonic War (1519–21))

Kazimierz Tymieniecki, Bolesław Chrobry. in: Konopczyński Władysław (ed): Polski słownik biograficzny. T. II: Beyzym Jan – Brownsford Marja. Kraków: Nakładem Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, 1936. (Polish-German wars 1002-1018)

You added Otto I's raid on Poland in 963, write me which historical source gives any information about this raid? Please read this[15]Kcdlp (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On this page which you have given is only a map.

Herwig, Wolfram, Conrad II, 990–1039 Emperor of Three Kingdoms page 212 - clearly is written "The victorious Piast prince"

The Foreign Quarterly Review volume XXVIII october 1841 - january 1842 page 181

the rest I will try to write todayKcdlp (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For lack of time, I answer today. So I understand that the words Thietmar you also read about this peace? These words clearly indicate that the emperor not won this war. By the way Thietmar in his chronicle very unfavorably presented Slavs, so it is not surprising that he wrote so little about this peace treaty. You did not answer to my earlier question, why on this page, which you have given is a map?

The Cambridge Medieval History vol 3 - Germany and the Western Empire - Unfortunately, there is no numbered pages, write in google books title of the book and the Peace of Bautzen, There is written about Boleslaw ″in the peace of Bautzen (1018) he had been the chief gainer at the expense of the Empire″

Ernest F. Henderson A History of Germany in the Middle Ages, page 161Kcdlp (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the book, Ernest F. Henderson A History of Germany in the Middle Ages, in page 161 is written "... peace was concluded at Bautzen which was highly favorable to Boleslav". It was not one war, it was three wars, each of them ended peace treaty and not a ceasefire or truce. The first war began in 1003 and not in 1002 as it is here in the article on wikipedia because in 1002 there was an raid, in which Bolesław capture Bautzen, Meissen and other areas (probably Henry II promised Bolesław these lands in exchange for the support of his candidature for the King of Germany, Meissen belonged at that time to Eckard I who was the main opponent of Henry to the throne). In July 24, 1002 took place congress of Merseburg in which Bolesław also participated. During this congress, land which has captured in 1002, Lower Lusatia and Upper Lusatia was given to Bolesław in the form of a personal fiefdom, while Meissen was given to Gunzelin. During this congress was attempted to kill Boleslaw (Henry ordered assassination). In 1003 Bolesław took Bohemia, Henry wanted to Bolesław was vassal from Bohemia, Bolesław rejected the demand, which led to war. The war ended a peace treaty in Poznan signed in 1005, bolesław lost control of the Bohemia, Lower Lusatia and Upper Lusatia. The next war began in 1007, when Bolesław captured Bautzen, in 1013 peace treaty was signed in Merseburg, Bolesław behaved as a personal fiefdom, Lower Lusatia and Upper Lusatia. Third war began in 1015, and ended peace in Bautzen in January 30, 1018, which is discussed by us here. Lower Lusatia and Upper Lusatia were no longer fief but as a part of Polish territory, and also received military aid in his expedition against Kievan Rus. And looking overall at these three wars, Germany keep Meissen and Bohemia (as a fief), and Poland keep Lower Lusatia, Upper Lusatia, Moravia and Slovakia.

As to the raid in 963, there is no mention in the source about it, only in Thietmar chronicle was written "subordinated to the authority of the Emperor Lusatia and the Selpuli and also Mieszko with his subjects". According to eg. Gerard Labuda, Thietmar made an error summarizing the chronicle of Widukind, placing the Gero raid there instead of the fighting that Mieszko conducted at that time against Wichmann the Younger. Other sources make no mention of such conquest and of putting the Polans state on the same footing with the Polabian Slavs. Probably from 965, or in 966 Mieszko paid tribute to the Emperor from the lands usque in up to the Warta River. In all probability Mieszko decided to pay tribute in order to avoid an invasion similar to the one that Lusatia had suffered.Kcdlp (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't answer several questions:

For Antonescu, why the change from Prime Minister to officeholder, and why the change in date format, when even if a mix was used, month-day clearly predominated over day-month?

For both, why the addition of flags in contravention of WP:INFOBOXFLAG, and why the link to First World War and Second World War when our articles are located at World War I and World War II, both terms used in the body of the respective articles you changed? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "day-month and First/Second World War are used by non-Americans" claim, I really think you should familiarize yourself with MOS:RETAIN. Unless articles specifically deal with Britain or countries that use varieties of British English, there is really no call to go around modifying them on a whim. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:33, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to ask that my blocked status on Wikipedia be reviewed. In the past, I made several sock puppet accounts. At first I didn't realize this was against the rules and just wanted to edit more anonymously, so the first block was quickly removed. But soon after I was topic banned from all things related to Armenia because of edit warring and BLP violations. Back then I had thought the topic ban was something that would never be removed, so I began sock puppeting again to avoid the ban. Eventually I was caught and blocked again, and then fell into a pattern of continuing to sock because I felt I had dug myself into a hole too deep to ever climb out of. When I look back, I feel embarrassed at how poorly I handled disputes and how I tried to bypass the rules. I was younger then, and I just wanted to aggressively push how I wanted an article to look as if this were arguing on a forum instead of understanding this is an encyclopedia to help build. I have not sock puppeted in over six months, and during that time I have familiarized myself a lot more with the rules and guidelines. I understand my editing and socking violated the rules of Wikipedia. I will not try to edit from other accounts anymore and, if given another chance, I will not continue edit warring and instead use the talk page to reach a consensus and accept whatever it may be. I understand if you do not want to remove the topic ban as well right now, which I would be happy to earn getting appealed as I failed to do years ago. I feel like I know how to edit a lot more productively now and would like the opportunity to prove it. I'm making this appeal on Steverci instead of OptimusView because I do not remember OptimusView's password. Steverci (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Steverci, please make your request here. Nothing you sent me in email was private, and unblock discussions should happen publicly. --Yamla (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steverci, rewrite your unblock request for a larger audience and I'll take it to the Administrators Noticeboard. Ping me when you do. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Dear Wikipedians, I humbly ask that you consider my appeal for my editing sanctions. In the past I hadn't bothered to understand how to properly edit Wikipedia and just wanted to aggressively push how I wanted certain pages to look, whether by getting into edit wars or by making extra accounts. I have put off making this appeal for a long time to make sure I truly return to editing Wikipedia with a new mindset so as not to repeat the same mistakes of the past. I have extensively studied WP:CONS, WP:DR, WP:EQ, WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:SOCK, and other similar pages to familiarize myself with Wikipedia's guidelines and rules. My block has allowed me the time to reflect on what I did was wrong and that the administration was right to impose sanctions on my account because of my behavior. I now believe the sanctions are no longer necessary because I have a completely different outlook from what I had years ago. I now understand that Wikipedia isn't a battleground to fight with others but an encyclopedia that users work together to improve. I promise that I will not resort to sock puppeting anymore and I will work on building consensus with other users instead of edit warring. Thank you for taking the time to read this appeal, and I hope you all will consider giving me the chance to prove the genuineness of my words by editing Wikipedia productively once again. --Steverci (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

See below. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bbb23, I see no socking, so I don't have an objection to this as a CU. Do you mind if I copy this to AN for community review? TonyBallioni (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @TonyBallioni: No endorsement but no objection. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• copied to AN. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your block as been lifted following a successful unblock request on AN. The sanctions I imposed on you in 2015 are vacated. The following sanction is in place instead: indefinite topic ban from topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as ethnic conflicts related to Turkey, all broadly construed. This sanction may be appealed after no less than six months either to me, AN or AE.

The sanction has been imposed following discussion in your unblock request on AN and in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of ArbCom's decision to impose discretionary sanctions here. The sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. You may also appeal this sanction using the process described here at any time if you believe it necessary. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You egregiously violated WP:BLP at Talk:Kenosha protests by bringing up legal histories of victims. Even if the alleged shooter uses an affirmative defense of self-defense, that info cannot be used in any manner (unless Rittenhouse magically knew about it ([16])). We are not a tabloid. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Required DS alert[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

EvergreenFir (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: My mistake, I'll be more careful next time. Can you tell me where exactly on BLP is this forbidden, so I can better familiarize myself with it for future reference? WP:BLPCRIME says that the person has to be convicted, which all three were. --Steverci (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for responding and asking. The issue here is that you appear (emphasis on appear) to be engaging in behavior other editors have been as well: trying to add negative information about people (in this case, the victims) for no purpose other than to smear them (WP:LIBEL, WP:ATTACK, WP:AVOIDVICTIM, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE; see also WP:BLPPRIMARY). That information is not remotely relevant to their killings. We do not engage in tabloid journalism and negative/damaging/ stigmatized information about any person covered by BLP is by default omitted. The WP:ONUS is on editors to show why the inclusion is necessary for the readers' understanding. (The reverse is true to a lesser degree in that we don't write hagiographies either).

I acknowledged I'm coming down rather hard on this. That part is not personal; the politicization of the event has created social media efforts to "define" (in a Michel Foucault-esque way) the event in terms that favor a person's point of view. Trying to show people as "heroes" or "villains" has been persistent on these topics. FWIW, I respond the same for "the other side" as well. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: I didn't think the information I proposed adding was much different from the information already given in the background section. The possibility it was libelous did occur to me, but I figured it wasn't libel because these were convicted crimes and there were credible (I checked) sources reporting them. And I'm not still arguing for adding the crimes, just explaining my reasoning. I figured it would be contentious, which is why I didn't go straight to posting it on the article. Do these new stringent rules apply to just asking for a consensus on a talk page? And I never thought you had any bias. --Steverci (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies everywhere, including talk pages. I'm the future, for stuff like that, just asking if "something like this about past arrests should be included" and linking to the reliable source would work to strike a balance between bringing up the issue to determine consensus and respecting BLP. Hopefully that makes sense? FWIW, I appreciate you asking and being willing to hear it! Most people react defensively, so i truly am relieved when folks ask sincerely! EvergreenFir (talk) 03:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir: Thanks for being willing to explain all this! So the issue was with the past arrests, right? Was there anything wrong with the "shoot me" protestor? Because that was opposed due to NYPost being soon-to-be depreciated, but I've since found two reliable sources reporting it. Is it alright if I make another discussion about this? --Steverci (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! EvergreenFir (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steverci,

Based on the discussion you began at WP:AN, I've lifted your topic ban, which covered “Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as ethnic conflicts related to Turkey, all broadly construed and under discretionary sanctions". Sorry the process has taken so long. I know I would have been frustrated to wait this long for a decision. I hope this outcome will not only bring some closure for you, but also mean that we have another helping hand on Wikipedia, especially in Armenia- and Azerbaijan-related topics, where I know you have a passion.

In considering your most recent appeal, I spent a good while evaluating your edit history, past sanctions, and appeals. I agree with Wugapodes: I see a positive mindset. If you keep with that while avoiding the mistakes that led to your previous sanctions, you should do just fine. Oh, and one thing Nosebagbear mentioned was your sporadic use of edit summaries. Especially with contentious topics, I'd suggest using them no matter how small your edit is. That helps a great deal when others are trying to figure out what you did. Multiple editors have decided to give you a chance; we want you to succeed. I want you to succeed. Feel free to reach out if you have any questions, and happy editing. Airplaneman (talk) ✈ 05:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Steverci (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link to the discussion that supposedly ended with a consensus that Russia should be removed from the infobox as you implied in this edit ? — CuriousGolden (T·C) 21:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually, Solavirum's block log record looks far less spotty than yours, truth be told. If there were logged warnings, it makes sense to note them in the report, from the outset. Because that is something that wouldn't show on the block log and therefore is otherwise difficult to immediately discern. El_C 00:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have broken the Arbitration Committee's ruling on First Nagorno-Karabakh war article by making 2 reverts under 24 hours. Therefore, I'm asking you to self-revert your last edit. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CuriousGolden: I don't see a 1RR notice on the article. --Steverci (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Steverci, because it's always on the talk page. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 22:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is at WP:AE#Steverci. Thank you. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 09:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Since the enforcement of my topic ban, you have been slandering me throughout the articles and discussions related to the Armenia and Azerbaijan topics. As you can assume, I can not answer your accusations and slanders because of my topic ban.

• diff 1 – directly accusing me of genocide denial and saying that I got banned for the denial, when that was not the case.
• diff 2 – after removing a category–Category:Armenian war crimes, added by me in Battle of Kalbajar, accusing me of misusing the said category, despite the fact that I had cited a Human Rights Watch report.

I hope you will take this into account and be more careful in the future when it comes to opining about other editors, especially when I'm actually not there. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 17:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see this discussion involving you here: [17] Thanks. Grandmaster 23:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Artsakh is anachronic because NKR became Artsakh on 2017. --Panam2014 (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was it an Armenian who made wine in China 😃? I don't understand why you are trying so hard to prove that the first winemaking was in China when it was falsely written that the first winemaking was in Armenia and that didn't bother you at all. That's very funny 😃. I'm not saying it's Georgia that's bothering you (but it sounds like it is).--Van Gogia (talk) 09:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Armeno-Georgian War. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please stop reverting the article removing content that is reliably sourced. At this point you are just deleting everything you don't like. Please also aquaint yourself properly with guidelines before making accusations. To write "according to" for example has absolutely nothing to do with MOS:ALLEGED expression of doubt, it's completely neutral. You should also not lie about the conduct of fellow editors, which goes against Wikipedia:Don't lie and please avoid expressing bias against entire peoples when discussing articles. Those things have no place here. --TheMightyGeneral (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Grandmaster 12:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steverci - Discussion is currently in progress at the dispute resolution noticeboard about Shusha. Please reply there to let us know whether you are participating in moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JellyMan9001. I noticed that you recently removed content from Vrats dasht without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. JellyMan9001 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Van Gogia (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see this discussion concerning you. Thank you. Grandmaster 13:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement[edit]

As per the above report at WP:AE (link), you are again subject to an indefinite topic ban from topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as ethnic conflicts related to Turkey, all broadly construed. This sanction will be logged at WP:AC/DSL. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:23, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Note that this block is in response to your "appeal" posted at WP:AN today [18]. While you are of course entitled to appeal, the material you posted at the noticeboard consistent to a large extent not of arguments for the lifting of your own sanction but of renewed accusations against another editor, much of which was entirely unrelated to your own case. As long as you are topic-banned, you are not allowed to raise dispute resolution matters or call for sanctions against other users in the same topic area. You may participate only insofar as it related directly to your own sanction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks and violations of the harassment policy, as well as disruptive editing in general that pertains to the WP:AA2 topic area. Look, Steverci, as another admin has put it, the bribery accusation against Ymblanter is beyond the pale. And submitting an appeal only 2 weeks after an unsuccessful previous one is an abuse of process. It's too much at this point.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 09:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

El_C I suppose I had assumed other users would click the second failed topic ban request I linked and see the full background history behind my accusation, but should have probably provided a more in depth explanation. When I reported a user for canvassing, and it was a very obvious case, Ymblanter claimed that I was "interested in removing as many people as possible from the oppose party, and to bring there as many people from their own party, so that after several screens would have been written, no reasonably impartial user could join, and the discussion is doomed to be closed as not done." I was surprised by his incivility and lack of professionalism that clearly went against WP:ADMINCOND. But I decided to turn a blind eye to it and WP:AGF even if he wasn't. Later when I was suggesting a user was not here to build an encyclopedia, and I had strong evidence to back this up and permission from an admin to make the discussion, Ymblanter tried changing the discussion into a topic ban proposal for me. He had said: "However, what Wikipedia certainly can benefit from is indefinite topic-ban of Steverci. They have already been topic-banned for years, unbanned recently after a successful AE appeal and, apparently, decided to get all their opponents topic-banned so that they can do whatever they want." Once again, throwing all AGF guidelines out the window. Ymblanter was humiliated for not doing basic research before calling WP:BOOMERANG and even said he wouldn't get involved in Armenian-Azeri disputes again because of it (so much for that). So I cannot quote Ymblanter for something he actually said (which isn't libel as he claimed), but it's fine that Ymblanter harasses and makes personal attacks against me? I probably should've reported him for WP:ADMINABUSE after the second incident, but I felt I couldn't after the claim he made about me and my "opponents". When I made both of my appeals, Ymblanter turned out to still be stalking me because he was early to comment on both, and was still strongly supporting sanctions. I still don't think I got fair trial either time because of that. I had come across his "joke" out of context on a Wikireality article (which I cannot link here because I just noticed the site is blacklisted), which summarizes the mailing list incident. So I hadn't seen the responses, I just looked up the date/time of the diff on the Russian wiki. Like you, I have to translate Russian to understand it, so I wouldn't have noticed what anyone else was saying without translating them, and the "joke" was lost in translation. Now that I know the full picture, obviously Ymblanter didn't take a bribe. But even joking about that at all should still be deeply concerning. Maybe Ymblanter can explain why he only supports pardoning past actions for certain users, or why he chooses to ignore users that have literally admitted in leaked chats to gaming the system to eliminate their opponents. It's suspicious that he let 21 of the 26 off with a slap on the wrist for something that would usually result in an indefinite block, especially because the mailing list clearly had a good knowledge of wiki guidelines and how to game them, so they couldn't claim ignorance. But he keeps pushing the harshest possible sanctions for me. Please consider this text from WP:HARASS while reviewing my unblock request: "Some people may find it hard to remain calm and to react constructively in the face of real or perceived harassment. It is important that any allegations of misconduct about someone who is being harassed be considered in this context. Suffering real or perceived harassment does not justify an editor's misconduct, but a more cautious approach to sanctions in such situations is preferred." Steverci (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request contains allegations of misconduct by others, which makes it invalid; see WP:NOTTHEM. Sandstein 13:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Steverci, there's nothing inherently concerning about bribery jokes —where is this hyper-sensitivity suddenly coming from?— however, stating the joke as fact (the criminal offense committed) is defamatory. You jumping to such an extreme conclusion, with such extreme bad faith is, frankly, beyond me (be it due to incompetence or intentionally). BTW, the use of "wikistalk" and "stalk" was abandoned in 2008. WP:STALK is now a soft redirect to WP:HOUND/WP:FOLLOWING. Just apropos a more cautious approach... El_C 11:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Is it defamatory or harassment to throw around accusations like "decided to get all their opponents topic-banned so that they can do whatever they want" or to hound every noticeboard discussion I have? --Steverci (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not biting. Other admins can weigh on unblocking. Or it'll be up to the community, if the proposed community ban (WP:CBAN) passes. El_C 04:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]