User talk:Meowy - Knowledge

1911:(see Thierry's "Notes D'Un Nouveau Voyage en Georgie Turque" article in Bedi Kartlisa of 1968. There is info about Porta in it also, and the content is summarised on page 22 in volume 2 of Sinclair's "Eastern Turkey an Architectural and Archaeological Survey"). Opiza looked very similar to the Porta church. I remember reading somewhere that the drum and dome was blown up by some local Turkish fanatics in the 1970s - but I can't remember the source right now. The 1999 Turkish book Artvin'deki Mimari Esserler by Osma Aytekin says Opiza is in Bağcılar Koyu. It's got a lot of information on Opiza (and Porta) but is in Turkish and my Turkish isn't good enough to translate it properly (but is seems to be using "Monuments de Tao-Klardjetie" by V Berizde, Tbilisi 1981, as its source). It has a drawing of the monastery's church from the 1900s showing it intact. The drawing will be out of copyright so if you make the Opiza article it could be added to it. I was also intending to create an Opiza article, but 7 days from now I'll be away travelling for a month. 2980:

Dennis's words now seem to suggest that the real sin in it was that it was a hostile comment directed at Kober, (not anything to do with its content regarding Knowledge). If Kober did not feel the hostility in it merited a complaint at the time, how can it now be used at a later date to justify a permanent ban? What else can I do? I can give a sincere appology to Kober for the comment (he is actually an editor I generally think highly of - one of the few who edit Georgia-related articles with sincerity and knowledge - and that comment came out of disapointment at some edits he made, and not from personal hostility). I can agree that any future talk page comments I make on my talk page (or anyone elses) will follow the same standards as if it was on an article page, and I can agree to always making them on-topic and concerning content issues, and without any humour that might be misinterpreted. But that's about it. And I doubt that is enough.

2999:

hostility displayed right there, and that a block was issued so quickly that tempers never got to cool down. But a bunch of the comments on ANI (those that aren't knee-jerk reactions) indicate that sticks must be dropped and reasonable consensus must prevail, even if you disagree that the consensus is reasonable. I've argued elsewhere that things were done too hasty (the block, especially), but that works both ways. People get rubbed the wrong way, rightly or wrongly, by your tone, and you tend to be quick on the draw. I'm not likely to block or to take immediate offense, but you have to live with the fact that some do. Mind you, I'm not trying to apologize for Andy or Ian--those responses were inexcusable in my book. I hope some of this makes sense. I'm going to bow out for a while, since there's other work to do (like, a job).

356:

And yes I am anti-Assad (and anti-gaddafi/khalifa/tantawi/mubarak/maliki/king abdullah/al-thani), but I don't let that get the better of my responsibility to be neutral. I do however address edits by other users that I see to unreasonably skewed in the Syrian government favor in higher proportions than I do with with other types of edits (talk pages, mistakes, refs, ect). I focus on the Syrian page more only the Syrian page receives the highest POV-pushers. The Bahraini page does not receive a high amount of POV pushers, because both the "the west" and "the east" agree that the Bahraini protesters are not a foreign conspiracy, but a genuine revolutionary movement met with brutal force by the government. What I am saying is I am just really ticked off by these conspiracy-pushers, and that drives me to an intensive response.

3017:

twisted around so easily, and that I wouldn't have declined unless I felt that was the appropriate response after careful deliberation. While I will remain open minded, I'm not currently convinced that unblocking is in the best interest of Knowledge at this time. It was not a drive by decline, nor prompted or requested by anyone, and I chose to consider it because it has sat for almost 10 hours with no one willing to consider the issue. If you choose to unblock him, I am not going to labor the issue with you personally, our friendship is certainly stronger than that, but others may not be so forgiving unless there is a clear path forward. In my opinion, there is trollish behavior involved, crafty but subtle. As always, anyone is free to discount or ignore my opinions if they so choose, without fear of reprisal.

2849:? No, what you claim is self-evident is not self-evident at all, and you're whistling dixie, or blowing hot air, whichever one you like. There is an editorial dispute here, and you're using OR to pull out straw men. You may disagree with Meowy's opinion, sure, but this psychoanalysis is unwarranted. For what it's worth, I believe there are enough sources to warrant "terrorist" in this case, and "militant ideology" as well. But "atrocity" is hardly necessary, and I can see Meowy's problem with that. Now, that a whole bunch of editors want to suggest that Meowy is an apologist for right-wing fascism, or Illinois nazism, or whatever else you want to throw at him--what on earth could be the point of that? Or its legitimacy? Don't answer that. 2910:

standards. The purpose should not be righteousness but returning to editing within the parameters set by the community--otherwise an unblock request is just grandstanding. I agree with you that some of the community's parameters are faulty or in need of tweaking and have placed a note on ANI to that regard. I do not completely agree with Dennis's decline, but he's an admin too, and I respect him, and I'm not going to go against him without some input from the community. FWIW, I totally disagree with the indefinite block but, again, I'm a total sheep and won't baaa too loudly right now. I hope to sway the community a bit. In the meantime, play it cool and consider what it is you want, and how you could help create a return to Knowledge.

1426:

ones, and have explained them in more and more detail as the discussion progressed, while GeorgianJorjadze mostly stated his preference for the old version. He's reverted any attempt I, and another unrelated contributer, have made at changing the template. Confronted with particular problems, he fixed them partially on his own rather than trying to work out a compromise version including some of my changes, as I did repeatedly with his own. After his last revert, instead of answering my arguments for the changes, he went to ask an admin to protect the template on the grounds that I am edit warring (

756:

photos used in that Knowledge article) I am certain that a reasonable person would agree that the word "fascistic" is an accurate description of that person's views and attitudes. I did use a small "f", so I was not saying that he was a card carrying member of a Fascist organisation. The article deletion route is not really appropriate - there was an Akner monastery, it is just not at the place detailed in the article. It is unfortunate that I cannot prove the photographs used in the article have been stolen - the Flickr account that they were stolen from is no longer online.

2034:

am here because I oppose everything Knowledge stands for. A good writer does not bury truth because suitable sources are not immediately to hand, a good writer does not promote lies simply because sources exist that present those lies as if they were truth. But I recognise that few people have such high moral standards - or the courage or the knowledge to carry through with them. I have been trying to follow those high standards in whatever edits I make here, and I had hoped that you (with your opposition to the worst aspects of Georgian pov editors) were similarly inclined.

1595:

his mother, and went round them again seeing what replies he got. For Knowledge specifically, I think this is an off-topic use of talk pages, (and in a broader context I personally feel it is a trivialising way of dealing with a death - why should one want such an amount of sympathy from complete strangers). Expressing disaproval of someone's actions is not a personal attack, and I was not posting it on Wesley's talk page. Nor am I going to be saying anything more about this, so I would like the issue to be closed. If it is OK with you I'll delete this section shortly.

3221: 392:

to refrain. Moreover, I think Sopher is trying to stop the page from becoming completely pro-Assad. Many socks of certain blocked users (for POV-pushing, vandalism .etc.) constanly vandalise the pages relating to the Uprising. These socks always vandalise battle outcomes, delete information, and are a general nuisance. It's just the influx of quite a few mysterious users, who usually have made few or no edits outside the Syrian Uprising topic, and are new, have started to alter the NPOV to a pro-regime POV. Trying to stop this isn't a serious crime.

1434:). I've exposed on the talk page reasons for all of them, last one is the most detailed. I would also appreciate if you (and other editors) could comment on a possible change of image (from the old map now used to the georgian coat of arms), for the sake of consistency with similar templates, and the inclusion or not of dates (I proposed a version with, but am rather neutral on the subject). In any case, I won't edit that template again until other, less partial, users, come and give their opinion on the matter. Thanks a lot!-- 2551:. The introduction section of the Breivik article did not avoid using the word terrorist, and it was being using without any in-text attribution. This went against the Knowledge Manual of Style guideline. The lead also used several other words that the Manual of Style would certainly also class as "Value-laden labels", words such as "militant" and "far right". Bringing that to the attention of other editors cannot be called "deliberately provoking incivility" or dismissed as "trolling" or "disruptive editing". 1973:]. The guidelines say that talk page content should be directed towards content issues and content creation - the post I removed did not have that aim - they were dead-ended soapboxing opinion pieces. In addition, one of the deleted postings had vary serious blp issues. Normally there is no great harm in a talk page having a few off-topic postings (and it often makes them interesting to read) but that article's talk page is getting out of control and legitimate discussion is being swamped out. 2252: 945: 215: 193: 171: 2337:

wanting the word retained could easily have made the article fit the content guidelines. Instead they chose to throw insults. "Terrorist" is always pov - there are many regimes whose laws have their own interpretation of the term. But this stuff has been discussed in countless articles before. There is nothing to make the Breivik article an exception to the rule, and there is nothing to excuse gross incivility on a talk page directed at an editor for simply having pointed out that fact.

22: 2077:(but not all) of its policies acceptable. If you are not able to find suitable sources for what you consider to be "the truth", I'm afraid you will never win the war you have declared on Knowledge. And please refrain from personal attacks. I'm not doing anyone's job here. That's probably why I've never given any serious blocks and bans in contrast to many of those editors and yourself, by the way. Requesting a citation tag does not amount to POV editing. Deal with this. -- 1325: 3049:

How can I counter an interpretation of something, and explain that the interpretation is wrong, if nobody will tell me what they think was wrong with the content of my edits. As you said, there was no incivility in anything I posted, so what was it in them that was "deliberately provoking incivility"? I had no prior contact with any of the editors involved in that article - so how could I even know about any of them to want to "deliberately provoke" them?

2638:. John Carter below describes the post's content as "arrogance, self-righteousness, disregard for objectivity, and (I feel justified in saying) delusion" YES, OF COURSE IT IS - IT WAS INTENDED TO BE EXACTLY LIKE THAT! It was written as a joke reply to someone who considered that they were so familiar with the opinions of Jimmy Wales that they could state, quite confidently, that "he is with him". The post did not even contain the words 2422: 74: 1875:); picture looks like it's totally ruined. I looked up on Google Earth the geolocalisation given there, found only a turkish village; wikimapia, when looking for Opiza, gives another village much closer to Khandzta/Porta. I'd like to create an Opiza article, but further information seems necessary. I think I'll wait until I have access to some library; that book looks like the most helpful as far as I can tell: 2364: 1175:; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive. 1015: 2741:

self-righteousness, disregard for objectivity, and (I feel justified in saying) delusion that there is very little chance that I can imagine, even if you do request an unblock, that it is likely anyone will do so without significant limitations on your ability to edit. I would not myself necessarily object to you making such a request, however, or necessarily inhibit it being acted upon.

1751:", who IS a blocked sockpuppet account. However, as for the substance of your edit - you did remove accurate information for no reason. The information deleted was correct and on-topic. The article concerns a war over who should control particular territory ("over the control of territories in Lori, Javakheti, and Borchalo districts"), territory that had been part of the 1430:). I don't accuse him of edit warring, rather of poor ability to negociate compromises and admit he is not the only editor with rights on that template. For information, the version as it stands is his (he last reverted it to how it was before the discussion started, removing also the changes he had made), you can find my last attempts in the article history (last one is 371:

would have been doing it further back than 2011 - but you have done nothing like that. Probably you had never even heard of Syria until last year, but now, all whipped up with fake indignation fueled by whatever propaganda news channel you watch, you think you are an instant expert on Syria! Go back to watching Fox News and leave Knowledge alone.

2745:

own opinions of yourself, if you were to actively act in violation of what most people would consider fairly reasonable conduct guidelines. Even the most fanatical people tend to realize that, when they are the ones acting in violation of generally fair rules, that they have a difficult time justifying their actions, even to themselves.

3088:

agree that is a good thing for me to have avoided mentioning here. And, yeah, getting people boarding an international flight to refer to "that bomb" of a movie is funny too, but really not a nice thing to do at an airline terminal. If that was intended as humor, maybe you might try in the future to use more "vanilla" jokes.

2679:" is supposed to help your case, so I will not consider that portion of the request. This type of disruption is subtle but no less damaging to the project, and a review of the totality of circumstances is consistent with the rationale given for the block. Based on the available information, it seems clear that you aren't 488:

yourself. 9 times out of 10, a person will notice their comments looking a little abrupt. I use the show preview religiously, as it is the only way to know what I am about to send, before I send it. Last thing you want is to send something, and only notice afterwards that it may have sounded irrational.

2625:"an editor's talk page is more like their kitchen; it's more informal, and (within reason) it's up to them what happens in there". He has also completely ignored the context of the post and does not seem to have understood it was meant to be read ironically. That post was written in a few minutes and was 2603:

It is not possible to demonstrate at any point that my edits were "motivated by a program of malice" (the key indication of trolling). The only malice and incivility on display (malice and incivility that reached astonishing levels) was from other editors. Do you think I enjoy being in the company of

2287:

Allow me to be honest, Meowy. If a man was convicted of terorism, he can be called a terrorist. Period, end of story. There is no BLP violation involved, nor is it reasonable for anyone to claim otherwise. There is no violation of policy or guidelines in taking the word of a court. Claiming otherwise

1801:

I think it would only be worth pursuing it if it could be shown that Parishan probably knew when making the allegation against you that all the accounts had already been found to be unconnected (for example, if Parishan had initiated any of those prior investigations or had posted comments in them).

583:

in reference to a misinterpretation of a comment made by someone else. Nothing derogatory in my choice of words there whatsoever, and by no means are they uncivil. I've been down the uncivil route many a time, and know now that those words aren't what you are trying to imply. However, when you use

487:

It may not appear uncivil, but the way you've over punctuated your comments in a "stomping feet to make a point" manner, is a form of incivility. Perhaps before you send a comment to a talk page, do a "show preview" thing, and re-read what you're about to send as if it was someone else sending it to

370:

You know nothing at all about Syria. Your edits on Knowledge that are connected to Syria begin and end with the "2011-2012 Syrian Uprising" article and its related fork articles. If you had any deep interest in and understanding about Syria you would have been editing other Syria-related articles and

355:

Thats my opinion that I was expressing ion a Talk page. I never altered wikipedia based of the Syrian government bearing the likeness of Saddam Hussein's. I have however altered the page based of the Syrian government being ludicrous (making farcical statements that they can't back up with evidence).

2998:

do is state that you will concede that your interpretation of the BLP policy (NPOV, etc) is overridden by a clear consensus on a talk page. And let me say immediately that I understand that this (if you ever thought you would drop your concern) was made very difficult by the extreme and unacceptable

2140:

Thank you for the PDF link. That is a great book, and I had been looking to get my own copy, but was having a hard time. I had found it only at a local library... Now, I should mention that most of the churches in that book I have also photographed during my last summer (2011) trip to Tbilisi. I

1032:

Hello Meowy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Knowledge, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey

391:

To be honest, Meowy, you, especially with your last statement, are acting in the way you accuse him of acting. I'm sure you wouldn't like it is someone said to you; "Go back to watching Press Tv and SANA!", would you? It's a violation of wikipedias rules on civility, to be honest. I would kindly ask

2744:

I do however believe that, if you choose not to request an unblock, that it would be basically useless for you to try to come back under another name. Given your statements above, I tend to think that you would be very easy to discover and identify, and it would hardly serve your own cause, or your

2534:

It is not "disruptive editing" or "trolling" to point out in an article's talk page that important parts of that article's lead section go against Knowledge's content guidelines. How can pointing out a legitimate issue, one that has been raised on many other pages, be characterised as "deliberately

2530:

article is not supported by examining the posts I made there. Nothing I posted there could have justified (or could reasonably have been expected to have generated) the degree of incivility that was directed at me on that talk page - abuse which has been continuing unchecked on the ANI issue that I

2076:

Wow. If your admission is not supposed to be a joke and you are not really here to build Knowledge, I don't think we can ever arrive at a consensus on this particular matter. I don't claim to be what you refer to as a "good writer". I'm wasting my time and energy on this project because I find many

2033:

You have either forgotten (or are not aware) that I consider Knowledge to be an intrinsically evil concept and a malevolent entity, a cancer on truth and on legitimate academic studies. Its concept of verifiability is the core of its evil. I am not here because I want to contribute to Knowledge - I

1594:

I think what I wrote is justifiable so I don't want to strike it out. Knowledge is not a support group or social media or chat room. We are all here firstly as "editors", not "friends". Wesley went around the talk pages of just about everyone he has been in contact with here mentioning the death of

840:

Thanks. There is nothing cuter or fluffier than a Van cat. Actually, I don't think there are substantial irredentist issues. For example, most of the claims in the "controversy" section have no sources: it is just some faulty OR from a few editors, and inflating the importance of a few rather silly

736:

More troubling, though, is your description of someone as an "Armenian fascist". In modern society, to call someone a "fascist" is almost universally taken as an insult; the only exceptions are when you're referring to a historical figure who was part of an explicitly Fascistic organization, or who

3048:

Dennis, you did not explained why you think it "could be argued" that my actions were "intentionally provocative". How can pointing out in an appropriate way a legitimate issue, one that has been raised on many other pages, be characterised as "deliberately provoking incivility by other editors"?

3016:

I'm not the one you have to convince, it is the many, many others. You know me well enough to know I don't take offense if someone reverts me, even if I disagree with it. I'm more tolerant of that kind of stuff than the average bear. You also know me well enough that my logic nor words can't be

2974:

have no idea what words will satisfy an appeal. I don't see anything objectionable or out of the ordinary in any edits I made to the Breivik article, and can't see how any of them could be construed as "deliberately provoking incivility by other editors". So even if I wanted to pretend a "such and

1910:

About Opiza, I'm embarrassed to say I mixed the names of the two up. I thought Porta was Opiza, and Opiza Porta! I've visited Porta (about 10 years ago - and during a storm that washed away the medieval trail that ran from the valley floor up to the monastery). Opiza was mostly intact in the 1960s

1578:

by striking it through or whatever. Removing it would have been fine but it's already been responded to; better would have been to not have said it all. If it's not a personal attack (and some may well think it is), it certainly isn't very sensitive, and thus it is completely unhelpful. What's the

1261:

My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Knowledge. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Knowledge community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any

2993:

I saw you struck those remarks. That's a good idea. You have problems with "terrorist", "atrocity", etc--that's fine, I can't fault you for bringing it up, and as you may have noticed I don't think those constitute trolling (but I'm in a small community there--only Tarc, I think, agreed with me).

2979:

was wrong. Denis has not explained why it "could be argued" that my actions were "intentionally provacative" and he did not address most of the points I made in the appeal. That rhetorical and ironic comment made to Kober was made - but I have withdrawn it and I tried to explain its content. But

2671:

allows for this in limited circumstances, and the discussion and review at ANI also supports the initial block as it would be difficult for an outside admin to determine the problem at first glance, so that point is moot. Since "incivility" wasn't the reason for the block, that you were civil is

2108:

If you had wanted to go on a fact tagging spree to remove unsourced material there were plenty of articles that have quantities of contentious content without citations. However, you added them to an article that had been stable since attacks by a series of pov editors and sockpuppet accounts had

1391:

An edit that removed most of my edit and that had an aggressive "mind NPOV please" as its summary sounded offensive and seemed obviously directed at me, but I will accept that it was unintended. As for that "seized", yes, I did not place it there, but you have no source indicating how this former

755:

I do know something about that person, and have come into online contact with him on a number of occasions off-wikipedia. If I were to post some of the obnoxious racist comments that this individual has made on his Panoramio account regarding Turks (including comments placed against the very same

301:

POV-pushing in such an open and unabashed and sustained way. I suppose it is good that you are not being deceptive by trying to hide your lack of neutrality and impartiality (deceivers are generally not nice people) but it is not the correct attitude to have when editing an encyclopaedia article.

3087:

on this site, including user talk pages? I used to tell really sick jokes in high school whose punch lines included "baby on a meathook" and "baby a la blender," and tell them rather often actually, but have somehow managed to avoid mentioning them here ever before. And I think most people would

2336:

is calling that person a terrorist, and it needs to be worded in a neutral way, something like "convicted of terrorist offenses". That was lacking in the article, (a blp to boot), a situation that went against content guidelines. I don't think consensus was needed to correct such an error. Those

1608:

Well, whatever Wesley's conduct or mode of coping and the merits thereof, it's kind of cold to blast him for it. His comments caused no disruption--expressions of sympathy do not interfere with normal editing--but yours obviously did. It's part of getting along, and it's one of the (perhaps few)

1425:

I initiated a discussion there on the talk page before changing the actual template, and started implementing the changes only after getting feedback from the other interested participant. I feel some changes are objectively needed to bring this template to the standards present in other similar

515:

It honestly wasn't meant to be or to sound uncivil. The point of my post was that the proposed content would benefit by being brief and concise and to the point (by cutting out the trivia) - so my post was made deliberately brief and concise and to the point, indicating, with punctuation, what I

2801:

Please explain how you think trying to make a Knowledge article follow Knowledge guidelines is opposing the aims of Knowledge? You link to a series of posts that just repeat the same displays of gross incivility and unsubstantiated bad-faith and that ignore everything in the unblock appeal. You

2683:

to build an encyclopedia, and it is at least arguable that your actions were intentionally provacative, and your comments to Kober are clearly hostile and not humorous and confirm the reasons for the block, and you have evaded or been deceptive regarding these issues, so I have no choice but to

2587:

I did not make any edits to the article content before making this initial post, nor did I immediately afterwards. This again shows I was not trolling or intent on provoking anyone. However, the only responses I got to my raising of this legitimate issue was incivility and bad-faith from two

556:

You said exactly the same thing to me! I am quoting your OWN WORDS. So, it is uncivil if I say it to you, but acceptable if you say it to me - and also say a lot of other uncivil things as well like claiming I am producing "false facts" and "What part of keep to NPOV are you struggling to grasp

2909:

they are spoken in satire. Think about what kind of an unblock request you can make that will satisfy both the patrolling admins here (who have invested in WP in a way that makes them abhor, almost instinctively, comments about Wales and kangaroos, and Knowledge and cancer) and your own moral

300:

It is nothing personal. I'm just astonished at the content of some of your article talk page and user talk page statements, and that you have got away with making them without any sanctions. I've been around a lot of articles that have generated heat, but I have NEVER seen a case of an editor

3102:

John Carter, do you know how close I just came to indeffing you for those punchlines? (Spoke the father.) Ha, who had that template, a warning for a not-funny joke? Maybe it was Bongomatic. Dennis, I know you carefully deliberated and all that, and I said "not completely agree"--not "totally

2519:

8 minutes before he gave me this block. The effect of the block may allow two editors who shared De728631's editing aims in the article to escape being given lengthy blocks for incivility. That would be a result that De728631 would agree with: about the actions of those two editors he wrote

1924:

For Opiza, using google earth - it is at 41°13'31.34"N, 42° 2'10.83"E. For Porta, it does not actually lie in Pirnali village, that is just the nearest village to it. Porta is actually very close to Opiza, it is here: 41°14'16.64"N 42° 4'25.11"E (so the Knowledge co-ordinates are wrong).

2740:

I first came to this page because I had marked it several years ago and saw it on my watchlist. Honestly, Meowy, the statement linked to demonstrates not only contempt for a group of people with which you have chosen of your own free will to involve yourself, but a degree of arrogance,

2520:"preventative measures don't seem to be necessary to me". The block was given just after I initiated an ANI report on the incivility of those editors, preventing me from responding to anything posted on that ANI. This is enough for De728631 to be seen as having a conflict of interest. 2830:

about the political and social context of the events" suggests you wish to provide some justification for what was done. It is self evident that you are a civilly pushing a point of view which is opposed to the principles of wikipedia (as you have previous said, you oppose wikipedia).

335:

I'm not going to cherry-pick your choicest comments (especially since I suspect you will like them) but they all show that there is a strong pov that you are pushing, over-the-top statements like "The Syrian government is a ludicrous bunch of Saddam Hussein figures, nothing more".

1831:. I also find that the point you were making was in no way helpful, as it was a rather obvious attempt at wikilawyering over those warnings to the other user; as such it appears to be a continuation of the problematic earlier behaviour that caused the restriction to be imposed. 824:

Responded. People in that part of the world sure have strange concerns. Who owns a cat breed? Preposterous. Can we not only care that they are cute+fluffy? I mean, just look at the adorable in the lead picture. This is perhaps the strangest piece of irredentism I've ever seen.

1380:

Chill out. There was nothing offensive about my edit summary. Accusing an editor of making an offensive edit "without giving any evidence is a serious lapse of assuming good faith." My primary concern there was the word "seized", which, to my knowledge, was not your addition.

1623:

You are probably right in that it was all pointless and unhelpful. I was letting my personal opinions make more out of his postings than the reality of the situation justified (and was doing it on another editor's talk page which was hardly fair on that other editor).

804:

I had realised that after I had read more carefuly what I had reverted. At first I had actually thought (because of the insertion of the "heroes" word) your edit was part of an edit by LordSako or a supporter of his pov, hence my way-too-strongly-worded edit summary!

1893:

Yes, I temporarily forgot the degree of scummyness that administrators can attain, and about the thinness of their skins and their ability to hold a grudge. The name of the blocking administrator doesn't surprise me - it will be a response for daring to post this:

1609:

cases where if you can't say anything nice it's best to say nothing. But I'll leave this be. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not much of a civility blocker, though my sympathy here is not with you. Close and delete if you will, though archiving is always better.

315:

While I agree that I am intense when it come to editing, I can't say that I am POV pushing. I was just startled by a magnanimous push by some of the other editors to try get the article to completely conform with Assad's conspiracy theory. I subsequently gave

407:

I think it might be time to take the issue to administrators, the single-issue editing aims of Sopher99, and his simplistic attitude to editing, do not contribute to a good article and are skewing it into an embarassing propaganda piece full of ugly POVs.

3103:

disagree". Who knows, we may have that beer one day, but don't hold it against me if I toast Meowy, and a couple of others along the way. Meowy, I don't think my advocacy is having much effect. I may not be a good advocate, I wish I were better at it.

2215:

Please don't remove the word "terrorist" from the article. Such a designation is not a partisan claim; a court has found him guilty of both murder and terrorism. (I won't object to some rephrasing, but this fact definitely belongs in the article.) -

1189:

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where

880:

I would like to pick the brain of more experienced users about the ongoing exchange between and a couple of administrators. Grandmaster suggests to restrict access to some and potentially to all articles in Armenia-Azerbaijan by excluding new users

2902:

Meowy, I think I suggested to you before that toning down the rhetoric would help rather than hurt your case. I understand you're frustrated, but I'm of the "pragmatism, not idealism" school, realizing fully well that when those words are spoken on

2535:

provoking incivility by other editors"? Just about every article that has ever used the word "terrorist" has had extensive talk page discussion about that use. The "terrorist" word also generated three pages of detailed policy discussion here:

421:

Well, that's you opinion I suppose. Although I'm not sure admin's will agree. I say this because as far as I know Sopher hasn't actually pushed his POV when editing. And I have been working on the Syrian Uprising project for some time now.

2809:? DoctorKubla says my "comments on the Anders Breivik talk page were all focused on the use of the term in the article, not in general". If you disagree with that assesment then post some difs to prove it. You will not because you cannot. 2612:

article the unattributed pov-word terrorist "provoke" that? I have no wish to interact with editors who can make posts like that - so if unblocked I will not be making any further edits to articles that they have been associated with.

2010:. As for the citation tags, they are benign and help improve the content. You are very much mistaken if you think that "a good editor does not initiate the removal of truthful content even if that content is not fully cited". I'm with 1942:. The top of the inner face of the dome was intact when I saw it. So the "Most of the cupola of the church collapsed in 2007" text should probably be reworded to say "the inner face of the dome and part of the drum collapsed in 2007". 2825:

that calling it an atrocity isn't neutral, that calling his ideology a Militant ideology isn't neutral, and in a section heading you added the rhetorical question that the article is a propaganda article. Your statement "Why is there

1522: 1464: 2273:

So you admit it was a threat, as I suspected. And now you continue the threat with words like "without consensus". Consensus is not needed to remove content for BLP reasons, especially where the content breaks Knowledge guidelines.

3271:, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of 2597:. In what way could those two edits be said to be "provoking incivility"? It was a normal content edit, it was justified, and it was made in an entirely regular way. How could it have deliberately "provoked" a response like this 1265:

I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Knowledge.

733:, you've made some rather extreme statements. In regards to your assertion that the article is fraudulent, I don't know enough to comment -- although I recommend that you should file for the article's deletion on this basis. 2877:

At the risk of being painted immediately as an Illinois nazi, I think "propaganda" has a wider use and meaning than some may think. But again, so what if he calls the article "propaganda"? And so what if he's clearly wrong?

2633:

Well, Jimmy Wales can go screw a kangaroo for all I care (we've all seen the 4-Chan "photo" of a Wikpedia admin doing it). If I had said something crude like that as aresponse, maybe De728631 would have understood that

3082:

of us have seen the picture of an admin screwing a kangaroo, and I sincerely hope it isn't one of me. While I can and do see how it might have been meant as "humor," maybe a sense of humor of that form is not suitable

1033:

takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

921: 1821:

As Grandmaster rightly pointed out, you are still under the AA topic restriction imposed in January 2010 by Sandstein, prohibiting you from making comments at AE threads that are not immediately related to you

2802:

yourself do it with your obnoxious "Arguing that the murder of 69 people wasn't an atrocity is extreme" comment. Nowhere did my words argue that or even vaguely suggest that. Why don't you go to talk page of

790:

Please feel free to revert/change my wordings as you see fit. I am not an expert on Armenian monuments; I was instead trying to go back through LordSako's edits and revert what appeared to be extreme POV.

1872:! I created the article mostly from the Georgian one, as it has FA status there. However, I can easily believe that this article relies mostly on local sources, etc. Opiza has its own article there ( 2806:

and accuse him of "Arguing that the murder of 69 people wasn't an atrocity" for his "I'm not involved in this conflict, just want to point out that "atrocity" does strike me as a POV term" comment

285:

We never even met each other and already you acting as if I am some sort of enemy, accusing me of a variety of violations and such. I am just a regular Knowledge user, not some sort of conspirator.

2086:

There you go - you are only what I thought you were (which is a disapointment, but not an unexpected one). :( I will deal with it by giving your edits close scrutiny for content and for aims.

3001:

For those who are watching: please do note that the offending diff was struck, that it was stated to have been a hasty remark that wasn't to be taken so seriously. Dennis, I hope that helps.

2231:

With regards to why I had warned you on your talk page instead of using the article talk page: you are the only one who insists on the removal of the word "terrorist" (without consensus).

1459:

has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Georgian Orthodox Church". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation.

2667:

Part of the problem here is that you are quick to point out the flaws of others instead of focusing on just the reasons you were blocked. While De728631 was involved in the article,

737:

explicitly embraced Fascism. You don't know anything about this person (although I'm willing to grant that he probably is Armenian), so you can't, and shouldn't, call him "fascist".

2672:

meaningless here. As for Andy's or Ian's behavior, that is still being discussed at ANI and is not relevant to this block. As to your explanation of your comments being a joke

3139:

If this joke does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. If you created this joke and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add:

1647:

Thanks for the heads up. Fortunately, I appear to have completely missed the (rather tedious) excitement. Shocking that two editors would resist whitewashing attempts, eh? --

1967:

I am confused - you have deleted large amounts of text from the Pussy Riot talk page but the guidelines for talk pages state that you should not delete other peoples' posts?

1876: 695:

Oh I 2012% agree. And I would appreciate it if you refrained from further interactions with myself; as I shall not want to be interacting with you from this moment forth.

1878:. If you know of any other good source, please let me know. I hope you can still edit your talk page, despite your current situation (which, by the way, I deeply regret).-- 1107:

in the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles! IF if ANY editors are to be restricted, then anon IPs should not be allowed to canvass for or edit in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles." --

858:

Why, the expression of that cat in the infobox has to be the most preposterous looks I have ever seen on an animal - and that's why I must absolutely have one of these!--

1463:

is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the

2629:

to an editor who tried to justify some drive-by fact tagging of an article by claiming knowledge of the "fundamental principles of Knowledge" and, essentially, saying

3196: 1992: 875: 2591:. Because of the lack of usable responses to the issue I felt free to delete the word "terrorist" from the article. When I did this I gave it a proper edit summary 1857: 3338: 3325: 3207: 2155: 1049:

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated

3276: 2733:

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.

1341:

this Civility Barnstar, in recognition of his excellent civil behaviour towards other editors involved in a peaceful debate surrounding content dispute on

2001: 1122:

Admins get no satisfaction from blocking anon IPs - they can only satisfy their power-lust when they block, or otherwise abuse, people they can name. :)

1823: 2014:

on this: unsourced material should be removed "aggressively". Note that I did not remove anything, but just tagged the unsourced text in line with the

2486: 2173: 2018:. My action should not offend anyone unless there are not some hidden grudges towards me or an inherent bias on the topics I edit. Please follow the 1406: 3345: 2169: 1786:

Thank u for alerting me of Parishan's unannounced - and now failed - fishing trip. I think misuse of SPs like that should be reported in AE. No?

1518: 2516:. He is a party to the dispute: De728631 supported the retention of the word "terrorist" into the lead of the Breivik article, making this post 1847:

For the record, I note that another administrator independently arrived at the same conclusion; apparently I beat him to this block by a minute

1422:, who was part of that affair, over this template. I would greatly appreciate it if you, along with other users, could come have a look at it. 2386:

don't even want to contribute in a constructive way to Knowledge.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may

2059:. It was meant to be a satirical reply to an editor professing to understand the "fundamental principles of Knowledge" and "what Jimmy wants" 2378:

from editing for a long history of disruptive editing and most notably for deliberately provoking incivility by other editors at the article

2015: 1987:

Thanks for your reply. My experience on WP to date is that IP users or new users removing pov material or soapboxing get stamped on quickly.

1725: 1262:

non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Knowledge have so much to share.

2203: 1829: 1826: 893: 1448: 248: 1895: 1443: 1160: 3279:. There's lots of news this month for the Knowledge Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... 1050: 764: 2975:

such thing I did was wrong and I won't do it again" appeal, I couldn't - because I honestly don't see anything here that I could even

2609: 2026: 1848: 1682:

Reverting an edit made by a blocked sockpuppet account. Also, there seems no good reason for the deleted content to have been deleted.

1141:

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

3097: 2244: 2183: 1498: 867: 163: 1268:

Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Knowledge Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.

2792: 1767:, etc, is off topic. Maybe you need to learn more about the geography of the Caucasus before you edit articles regarding Georgia. 2006:

You are welcome to follow my contributions as closely as you wish. Hopefully it will never become what had formerly been known as

1479:

Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 May 2012.

3186: 3041: 1759:

of the Russian empire. You deleted the mention of those governorates. The article does not concern all of Georgia, so mention of

1136: 3112: 3057: 2323: 1309: 1283: 717: 690: 636: 565: 551: 524: 510: 482: 3128: 3036: 2768: 2703: 2309: 1506: 1472: 1130: 2891: 2872: 2858: 2823: 2598: 2589: 2559: 2176:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1677: 813: 2840: 2817: 2606:"fuck off and die you disgusting little heap of shit. Sociopathic scum like you shouldn't be let within a mile of Knowledge." 2179: 1905: 1525:, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the 275: 2141:

haven't had the time to upload them. Please let me know if there are any pressing photographs that you may need. Thanks.

2055:

I feel I have to withdraw the above comment because certain editors have (assuming that good faith is behind their motives)

379: 365: 344: 309: 3352: 2779:. The block was inevitable since the aims of Meowy appear diametrically opposed to the aims of wikipedia (see Jimbo's page 2135: 1468: 1295: 1214: 1066: 431: 3010: 2988: 2955: 2919: 2594:

and I fully and calmly explained the edit reason in the talk page, quoting the Manual of Style advice to justify the edit

2345: 1810: 1775: 1632: 1618: 1603: 1560: 1494: 1228: 1178:

If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to

1116: 1038: 849: 416: 126: 3169: 2718: 2403: 2121: 2103: 2094: 2081: 2067: 2046: 1988: 1950: 1933: 1919: 1854: 1838: 1400: 777: 3371: 2807: 2150: 3237: 3029: 2845:

IRWolfie, are you really trying to justify an indef-block based on your interpretation of Meowy's words, extrapolating

2696: 2595: 2592: 2517: 2462: 2225: 1550: 1353: 703: 662: 596: 537: 496: 454: 1841: 1148:

Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in

2642:

used by De728631! The post was not meant to be a 5-line essay on the failings of Knowledge (and I'm not aware of any

1367: 1253: 1085: 1076: 1005: 443: 749: 149: 2526:

De728631 claims as the reason for the block that I was "deliberately provoking incivility by other editors" at the

2434:

Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the

2265: 2113:

that those pov editors and sockpuppet accounts had been trying to remove. That fact does not help your reputation.

1526: 1514: 1392:

Catholic church was obtained by the Georgian Church; whether it was legally transferred rather than simply seized.

962: 228: 206: 184: 1575: 1385: 676: 610: 468: 329: 294: 3165:

Wow, if had ever been tagged with one of those for every bad joke I made, my archives would be a sea of salmon. ←

2282: 1427: 1375: 1203: 1081:

I have posted this to EdJohnston's talk page. I believe you should raise this issue concerning Nagorno Karabakh.

2673: 2620: 2383: 588:

them too, then that is purposely directing insult towards another user. Check your manual of style my friend.

401: 95: 2208: 1851: 1835: 1721: 1717: 1693: 1194: 243: 798: 1996: 1456: 1342: 933: 915: 745: 264: 112: 3173: 2542: 1533:. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see 882: 199: 192: 177: 170: 3251: 2708: 2480: 1534: 280: 2754: 2558:

I used to bring up the subject be reasonably read as "deliberately provoking incivility by other editors"

2539: 2449: 3309:

Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

2457: 2387: 2258: 2251: 2019: 1656: 1431: 1408: 1315: 1156: 863: 145: 86:...Oh, wait... you have this one already. Anyway, kittens, wikilove blah blah etc. Good to see you back. 2780: 2445: 1747:

I apologise for mistakingly calling you a sockpuppet - I misread your name as the very similar-looking "

263:

trying to limit participation in the article. Take a look as a user active on the article’s talk pages.

2544:. Those discussions led to the Knowledge Manual of Style guideline that I used to justify my concerns, 2415: 1887: 1579:

point in hurting someone's feelings? I thought you'd be more careful in your remarks to other editors.

1179: 898: 2471: 903: 834: 3297:

Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

2435: 2371: 1981: 1301:

Hmmmm ..... someone has no idea what I really think about "the Knowledge community" and "the cause"!

1248: 1186:. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration. 64: 39: 3178:

Drmies, I think your advocacy have been quite fine. Your words do you credit and I appreciate them.

2654: 1000: 239: 221: 214: 3361:'s programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this 3303:

OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

2429: 1741: 1588: 1530: 1415: 741: 437: 2547:. This shows that the issues around the use of the word "terrrorism" are well establised and that 2536: 958: 3291:

Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

3153: 2490: 2467: 769:

I changed "fascist" to "racist"; also, the person I am calling racist is not a Knowledge member.

1795: 3231: 3024: 2944: 2691: 2527: 2379: 2209: 1521:. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the 1490: 1358: 1291: 1239:

Got an eye on it, but so far it's just got you two on it and no edit wars seem to be coming. --

1060: 859: 785: 708: 667: 601: 542: 501: 459: 141: 2882:--how hard can that be? If push comes to shove, start an RfC, on the article and on the user! 2453: 3362: 3093: 2750: 2305: 2240: 2221: 1419: 1112: 516:

think should go. If that did made it sound rather too abrasive and abrupt, then I apologise.

132: 1939: 795: 730: 265:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article

3315:

WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

1873: 1199:

Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage

235: 8: 3321:

Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

3220: 2868: 2836: 2788: 2476: 1883: 1760: 1701: 1642: 1482:

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.

1460: 1439: 1149: 725: 91: 2675:, I'm unconvinced and find the claim to be deceptive. I'm not sure how your comment " 1666: 3166: 2668: 2411: 2007: 1962: 1756: 1752: 1697: 1652: 819: 361: 325: 290: 3152:

this tag, and then explain why you believe this joke should not be deleted below. See

3342: 3227: 3018: 2685: 2357: 2199: 2190:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

1556: 1486: 1432:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:History_of_Georgia&oldid=491463391

1346: 1287: 1278: 1234: 1055: 696: 655: 589: 530: 489: 447: 2513:, De728631 should not have given this block because he is an involved administrator 2038:

But now you seem to be doing the job of those same (banned or blocked) pov editors.

3245: 3108: 3089: 3006: 2915: 2887: 2854: 2803: 2746: 2727: 2580:

I placed my post inside an on-topic and pre-existing section that was titled "lead"

2393: 2319: 2301: 2236: 2217: 2161: 2146: 1863: 1791: 1737: 1732:

the capital. Lern some Georgian history befor you edit articles regarding Georgia.

1716:

and not only Tiflis Governorate. And to be even more precise both of the countries

1614: 1584: 1517:

concerning Georgian Orthodox Church, to which you were listed as a party, has been

1244: 1108: 938: 830: 427: 397: 260: 256: 250: 140:

Also, can you archive this talk one of these days whenever you get the chance? :)--

108: 1477:

please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.

1816: 1671: 1569: 1548: 1414:

Hi! I'm writing to you as you seem to have helped resolving a recent conflict at

929: 911: 792: 2545: 1971:

Guidelines for talk page content do not actually state what you are saying. See

446:; and yet you continue to post uncivil comments towards myself on there. Why? 2864: 2832: 2784: 2680: 1879: 1705: 1435: 1145:

Your account activation code has been emailed to your Knowledge email address.

995: 951: 944: 889: 740:

I politely request that you remove that description from the page in question.

271: 87: 3285:

2863:

How do you interpret labelling a section "Propaganda article?" in good faith?

49: 3358: 3261: 2776: 2775:

I think if De728631 could be construed as involved, it should be ignored per

2407: 1764: 1713: 1709: 1648: 357: 321: 286: 21: 2297: 2289: 2232: 2195: 2191: 2099:

This hostile attitude does not help your cause. But I don't really care. --

1781: 1748: 3337:

only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the

2608:

In what way could a post made to object to the inclusion in the lead of a

2584:

In what way did anything in that post "deliberately provoke incivility"?

1324: 3368: 3241: 3104: 3002: 2937: 2911: 2905: 2883: 2850: 2623: 2514: 2315: 2142: 2011: 1787: 1733: 1610: 1580: 1240: 1211: 1210:

Thanks for helping make Knowledge better. Enjoy your research! Cheers,

1183: 826: 423: 393: 104: 55: 3179: 3050: 2981: 2948: 2810: 2761: 2647: 2440: 2338: 2275: 2114: 2100: 2087: 2078: 2060: 2039: 2023: 1974: 1943: 1926: 1912: 1898: 1803: 1768: 1625: 1596: 1393: 1382: 1338: 1302: 1221: 1123: 925: 907: 842: 806: 770: 757: 683: 629: 558: 517: 475: 409: 372: 337: 302: 156: 119: 1828:, you chose not to self-revert but instead to continue the discussion 53: 971: 885: 581:"I hate to say this, but you seriously need to read things carefully" 267: 2640:"I don't even want to contribute in a constructive way to Knowledge" 1869: 1541: 654:

And what do you mean by that statement? Explain yourself please!

137:

I almost forgot that you've been gone for almost all this time :p

51: 2165: 579:

Do I really need to repeat myself like a parrot? What I said was

2314:

Meowy, I agree with John Carter. Consensus here is not with you.

1729: 73: 1172: 2760:

J.C. - see above for my reply about that supposed "statement".

2935:"....realizing fully well that when those words are spoken on 2328:

Yes, someone can be called a terrorist - but only if there is

529:

I think you should strike out the uncivil comment you made .

56: 3133: 1014: 2268: