User talk:98.231.157.169

March 2021
Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Sason—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Armenian Genocide, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Armenian Genocide
In reference to your new section at Talk:Armenian Genocide: CONFLICTING is an essay, not a guideline, and the article does indeed discuss other significant points of view. It seems this section's topic is near identical to Talk:Armenian Genocide, indicating that you are still WP:BLUDGEONING. You ask to be referred to a policy or guideline; please see WP:CONSENSUS. You will, I fully believe, find it much easier to build consensus if you stop impugning the motives of other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, this topic is nowhere near “The only recent historian who is giving the 1.5 million estimate is Raymond Kevorkian—Wrong”. This latter section was opened in response to a misleading argument made by one of your editors, (t · c) buidhe, regarding the 1.5 million estimate that, as she wrongly states, only Kévorkian gives. The recent section, “Approximation of numbers of killed as a form of diminishment”, in sharp contrast, was opened to inquire—not "bludgeon"—about whether or not there exists a particular guideline that gives editors an authority to round up numbers in the case when most RS supply a wide range of numbers. I fail to see that Consensus mentions such an authority. Instead, I see that consensus on WP "involves an effort to incorporate all legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines". And, fyi, no WP editor has ever explained his or her motives behind rounding up figures so I, as you say, “impugn” them. From your response I understand that no particular WP policy and guideline exists that empowers editors to round up numbers. A range embracing the lowest and the highest victim numbers can also be a consensus, can it not? Then why especially an approximation, one may wonder? And, lastly, while I understand that you may hold your editors in high regard, hardly are most of them genocide scholars or late Ottoman era historians by training and experience. So your point about “impugning the motives of editors” doesn’t hold water, I’m sorry to say. By definition, editors are not professionals in these relevant fields.98.231.157.169 (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Davidian
 * Absolutely, using the range of numbers could be a consensus, and I encourage you to build such a consensus thoughtfully and inclusively. When I suggest that you stop impugning the motives of other editors, I am referring to: In those edits, you appear to be casting aspersions, in the sense of "accusing other editors of misbehavior without evidence". There are reasons of policy not to do so and a benefit to your chances of building consensus if you can collaborate civilly with other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your recent comment at Talk:Armenian genocide has similar issues. You have important points to make about the location-naming issue, the estimate of numbers killed, and other issues, but it is inappropriate to repeatedly bring those up in unrelated discussions. More importantly, you are once again casting aspersions on other editors, describing good-faith discussion about improvements to the article as a "politically motivated frame-up". Comments like those are both against Wikipedia policy and unhelpful to your arguments. I am speculating about your thoughts here, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine you are frustrated that other editors have stopped engaging in some of your discussions. I believe you will garner more discussion on your points if you step back your confrontational tone. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Davidian, I am still thinking about my response to the above, but here's a slightly separate issue. You recently made an edit to the talk page where you inserted your comments into another editors response. Please see WP:TPO for why that's not recommended. Could you please edit your comments so that all of your reply is below 's? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks Firefangledfeathers.98.231.157.169 (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Davidian
 * At this point, it is clear you need to be blocked from that talk page. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 22:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Really? And why is "clear"? Because a trivial question re: a relevant WP guideline, asked in a normal, cooperative, inquisitive and unabusive way, has been left unanswered by the editors?98.231.157.169 (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Davidian
 * No, no, this is not a matter of asking "trvial questions in a normal, cooperative, inquisitive and unabusive (aha) way". It's a matter of not understanding that no means no. The discussion above is from 19 May 2021, when you were explained in simple terms that WP:CONFLICTING is neither a policy nor a guideline. It's a matter that after 342 edits to that talk page you keep asking the same questions you asked on day 1 and because after 342 edits to that page, you refuse to understand the point. (CC) Tb hotch ™ 23:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep your (aha) to yourself, will you? I understood the point made on 19 May 2021 perfectly well. But if WP:CONFLICTING is neither a policy nor a guideline, who and which regulation gave the right to your BFF editors to interpret the conflicting fatality figures arbitrarily, they way they're doing? And this is something that I and other of your readers have never received a coherent answer to. Do you UNDERSTAND that? And, in case you didn't notice, 342 edits were ALL to the point representing valuable contributions on VARIIOUS aspects pertinent to this discussion. Again, in case you didn't notice...98.231.157.169 (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Davidian

Discretionary sanctions alert
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefangledfeathers (talk • contribs) 18:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Davidian. Please see the notice below about heightened standards in a sensitive topic area. These expire annually, so please pardon the repetition. I'd like to emphasize the "does not imply that there are any issues". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Talk:Armenian genocide, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. ''I see from above you've already been warned about assuming bad faith on the part of your fellow contributors. Your comments over at the talk page of Armenian genocide continue to show a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and you'll end up blocked if you continue with this. Please remember that your fellow editors are humans too.'' Jr8825  •  Talk  00:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass other editors. Jr8825 •  Talk  00:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. I'd suggest a block of an undetermined time for the Armenian Genocide talk page. I am not sure if this was done before on an IP, but their language is probably perceived as derogatory or similar since months. Then their persistent refusal to edit by themselves on Main space wikipedia and their insistence in 350+ edits probably aiming for a better description of the Armenian Genocide is not really constructive. I am not sure if 18 edits with thousands of bytes on only one day could go through as WP:Bludgeoning but I tend to believe so. Since March 2021, they have assembled around 390 edits on the Armenian Genocide talk page. I repeat that I believe that the IP can edit in a scholars article that supports their claims, or add their view to a similar article. I have not tried it since I do not edit with an IP but I assume this would work. And if it is seen as correct and no vandal appears, it probably stays.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have begun an ANI complaint so there will at least be a precedent. And there is actually quite a possibility there will at least be a warning, and I suggested a topic ban from the Armenian Genocide article and its talk page for you. I assume you try, but in reality you mainly take time from editors who could use their time much better. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.


 * Your bludgeoning of discussion at Talk:Armenian genocide goes back months, with over 300 edits that are basically saying the same thing even though the consensus is clearly against you. Continuing to beat this dead horse has clearly risen to the point that it is severely disrupting normal discussion and editing at that article.  This would normally be a discretionary sanctions issue, which makes less sense with an IP who refused to get an account.  If you come back and do the same, then I will just go ahead and set it up as a indefinite topic ban, regardless of IP address/name used. In short: as some point, a sane person realizes they are a minority of one and accepts that consensus is against them. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:11, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @ Dennis Brown - 2¢. Please direct me to a Wikipedia policy which limits the number of edits. If you fail to do so, I will have to make a request for administrator attention's to your policy violation. Also, if you cared to look into the Archives of this duscussion, you'd have noticed that there were, in fact, many contributors, and not a minority, making similar suggestions.98.231.157.169 (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian
 * You think you understand how this works, but you do not. All the information required has already been provided.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've opened an appeal reporting your policy violation. No Wikipedia policy guideline limits the number of edits on Talk pages. Also, 300 edits, if you cared to look into the Archives, were on a wide range of different subjects, and not the "same claim". I've reported your outright lie as well.98.231.157.169 (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Davidian
 * Normally, Arb requires you try to appeal it here on the talk page first (see WP:GAB, it's linked in the block template) then at WP:UTRS if that fails (I looked, it isn't there) before going to Arb, where I assume you sent the appeal to. I wouldn't hold my breath, as Arb is the appeal of last resort, not first. But it's your time to do as you please.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)