User talk:Hudavendigar

Welcome

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Wandalstouring (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A warning

I've come to make these warnings quite a bit to certain users yet many of them had the stubborn habit of ignoring me and have been topic banned from Armenian/Turkey related articles. I'm only going to ask you once sir, cease your disruptive articles right now, stop with the systematic distortions, or it's a straight complaint to Wikipedia administrators. I've asked you kindly more than once and yet you have chosen not to heed my words. I won't ask you again. Thanks.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Van Resistance. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Khoikhoi 22:20, 31 May 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).

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

---

Request reason:

My edits, factual and verifiable references and inserts have been systematically dropped or erased without any discussion in spite of my repeated attempts at having one. A well organized group seems to perpetrate these attacks, including personal attacks and name calling and hateful speech. While the group keeps their edit count low, forced me into too many reverts or edits. I would rather not play games, not look for ways to skirt wiki rules as others here do often but have a meaningful dialogue as I have real knowledge to share and contribute on these topics

Decline reason:

Merely believing yourself to be right does not justify edit warring or violations of the 3 revert rule. Also, initiating discussions yourself does not give you the right to violate those rules either. Discussion is to be done instead of repeatedly reverting to add your information, not while repeatedly reverting. Repeated reversions will get you a short-term block, and I see no assurance that you intend to stop edit warring over this issue. When the block expires, please seek dispute resolution and bring in outside parties before to try to add that information again. It should be noted that this has nothing to do with whether or not the information you wish to add is right or not. Merely that the act of edit warring is disruptive, and merits this block. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 1 June 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.

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi - What's the story about vandalism, which articles? Rgds, Gokhan (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Erich Feigl

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Erich Feigl, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.monarchie.at/myth/author.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Dog eats dog! :-) Meowy 18:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring, notice of discretionary sanctions

As you seem to be engaged in edit warring in an area covered by an arbitration committee case, this is to be your warning that discretionary sanctions, as provided in this case may be applied to you. Specifically, further edit warring may lead to a block from editing, or a temporary ban from editing articles on which edit wars have taken place. Please make sure to use dispute resolution rather than engaging in repeated reverts. Khoikhoi 05:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The above warning was not in regards to Erzurum, but all the articles you have been recently edit warring on. You have been mass-reverting on multiple articles recently, something that is extremely disruptive. Most of your contributions consist of edit warring. I know in your view that you are trying to bring neutrality to these articles, but your previous methods (of constantly reverting) obviously haven't been working, it only brings disruption to these pages. Instead you must follow the dispute resolution process, and keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Calling other editors "well known propagandists", is not only inappropriate, but also a violation of Wikipedia:Civility. This is why I warned you that if you continue to revert against consensus on all these articles, you may be subject to these discretionary sanctions:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

So, please follow the dispute resolution process instead of constantly reverting these pages, or you may be placed on the sanctions mentioned above. Khoikhoi 20:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. Meowy for example is already on restrictions, see the List of users placed under supervision and this notification on his/her talk page. So are other users. What I'm trying to stress is that I don't want to have to put you on that list, but if you continue editing disruptively, I will have no other choice. Simply reverting again and again is not the proper solution to reach neutrality in articles, it is by discussing your changes and getting a consensus with other editors. Khoikhoi 01:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, since you have chosen to continue to engage in disruptive editing, I am going to have to place you on editing restrictions. Please see below. Khoikhoi 06:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Erich Feigl

The article still has a lot of issues, but I am particularly curious about the source for your claim that Erich Feigl was a "Professor at University of Vienna". In which academic field? Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It is a good question. All my references refer to his Prof. title and U. of Vienna, but I have not been able to determine further detail due to my limited German. I need to ask around a little. Any help would be appreciated.--Murat (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, forgetting the question about his faculty for the moment, could you at least tell me the reference which says that he was a professor at the University of Vienna? Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Erich Feigl

An article that you have been involved in editing, Erich Feigl, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Feigl. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Namsos (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only I have been trying to edit this piece while fighting constant pov distorions, I have actually created this very entry. It has plenty of references to his life and work, and a lot more is easily available on line as his name produces thousands of hits. Your complaint sounds very disingenous at best. I am not all done yet though, it will get better, promise!--Murat (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

Just a courtesy note to inform you that you've been mentioned in a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POV. Feel free to read and comment. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

File:Yellow warning.png

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. Khoikhoi 06:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)