User talk:Meowy/Archive 1

Welcome!

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! —Khoikhoi 01:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Uncivil

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 | talk 21:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Point of disagreement

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. Badbilltucker 17:50, 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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)

Image:Ani the cathedral.jpg

What copyright notice is applicable? Images have to have copyright tags, could you please pick one from here? Thanks, Khoikhoi 03:21, 16 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?Meowy 02:25, 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? Khoikhoi 04:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ani

• 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. Meowy 03:15, 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 Scandal 07:50, 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. Meowy 16:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

John-Smbat

Google results also prove this simple fact: [1].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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! Meowy 21:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Also I wanted to point out that "Ivan Bagramian" gets the most Google hits, but we have the article at "Hovhannes Bagramyan". Khoikhoi 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkish Van - Languages

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)

RE: Europe

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. Corticopia 21:21, 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. Meowy 21:31, 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. Kafziel ^Talk 00:37, 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. Meowy 23:49, 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. Kafziel ^Talk 00:05, 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. Meowy 00:12, 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. Kafziel ^Talk 01:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello

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.Azerbaijani 14:44, 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

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 Hughes 13:13, 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.

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, as you did at Talk:Başkale, you will be blocked for disruption. — Gareth Hughes 19:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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.Meowy 01:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 48 hours (second block) for continued harassment of other Wikipedians. — Gareth Hughes 14:22, 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).

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

---

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

No reason given for unblock. Note that personal attacks are not tolerated. — Yamla 16:10, 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

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 - T 21:19, 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 Hughes 16:20, 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. Meowy 16:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm... the idea that "he/she should have had thicker skin" is not a defence for personal attacks. SGGH ^speak! 20:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm... obviously, since having thicker skin would be a defense AGAINST personal attacks. Meowy 22:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia under ANI

I have noticed that you have had a scathing experience with User:Corticopia. A request for comment has been opened up against her/him here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_Edits_and_Uncivil_Comments----^DarkTea 23:21, 12 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Kish Hetoum I 06:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Will have a look at it, and the various edits. May consider contributing. Depends on how bad the Azeri propaganda has got. Meowy 21:37, 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 I 00:19, 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? Meowy 22:42, 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:

User:Hetoum/Sandbox, User:Hetoum I/Sandbox. I noticed you say:

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? :)

Hetoum I 23:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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 I 12:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hi. Please be aware that you've been named as a party to an arbcom case here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. Regards, Grandmaster 09:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Meowy 22:33, 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. Meowy 23:26, 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. Grandmaster 10:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule on [[:on [[:{{{1}}}]]]]. 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. Evilclown93_(talk) 12:05, 5 July 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).

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

---

Request reason:

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.

Decline reason:

Please review WP:3RR - the 3rr is an electric fence and not an entitlement. — ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:21, 5 July 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.

p.s.

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 I 12:44, 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. Meowy 15:04, 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. Meowy 15:11, 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. Meowy 15:39, 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.

As for design it truly is peculiar.Hetoum I 20:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Georgian features include the apse being semicircular on the outside, and the mouldings around the apse window. Meowy 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

church of Kish

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. Meowy 00:49, 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? --Richard 23:41, 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.

Kaymaklı Monastery

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 Harrison ^Talk 20:43, 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). Meowy 20:55, 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. Meowy 21:14, 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 Harrison ^Talk 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Returned it, and didn't scan or photocopy it before returning it. Tut tut! :) Meowy 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed :-) Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

May be of interest

Notice you added some info on the monastery of Trebizond. May be these will also be of interest: St. Stepanos Church, Smyrna, St. Gregory the Illuminator's Church, Baku

Hetoum I 22:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I was browsing and checking some Armenian churchs, and saw your impressive work. Good job you obviously know your thing. Anatolmethanol 15:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I promise only to edit things I know. :) Meowy 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

About Marshal Bagramyan comment in the workshop

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. - Fedayee 22:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Closed

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.

You may view the full case decisions here.

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Kaymakli

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 I 01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 h in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for personal attacks and harassment. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. krimpet⟲ 16:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh noes! But I did it for the lulz. Meowy 16:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Signature Tests

test1 Meowy 21:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

test2 Meowy 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

test3 Meowy 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

test4 Meowy 21:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

test5 Meowy 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

test6 Meowy 21:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Lolcat

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. — i ^said 00:38, 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. Meowy 00:47, 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, Gracenotes^T § 01:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

warning

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. Meowy 00:08, 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. Meowy 19:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:

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.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing restrictions notification

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.

Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)