User talk:Armanqur

October 2020
Hi Armanqur! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Medes. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Do not call editors vandals, and don't use edit summaries to attack either. If you think someone is a vandal, report them at WP:ANI'' Doug Weller  talk 18:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello Doug Weller. Thank you for your message and advice on minor edits. I'll make sure to keep this in mind the net time I do any editing. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "no personal attacks." I don't think I did attack anyone on a personal level; I did attack content, but I don't recall going after contributors. If you could clear this up for me, I'd very much appreciate it. Thank you. Armanqur (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Armanqur, I guess this was rather about "bigot". This is a personal attack and I advise to strike it out. The discussion in Talk:Medes is sinking to a low, and don't get drawn down to that level. Sometimes it is better to ignore such comments or at best stay as dry and cool as possible. –Austronesier (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2020 (UTC)


 * But the person that I called a "bigot" said something racist. I called him a bigot for what he said Armanqur (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As you see it is better to leave such display of ignorance uncommented, it will always fall back on them (see below). You have handled the further discussion with utter coolness, and a willingness to listen to them and calmly provide counterarguments, more than anyone else of us has had before. Good job. –Austronesier (talk) 08:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is about the mess at Talk:Medes. Doug Weller talk 08:14, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Salvio 08:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Indefinite block
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Patience for Kurds-related disruption is growing increasingly thin. Hopefully, to soon be remedied by the conclusion of Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan. 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:. El_C 05:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think El C blocked you simply because you do not use the talk page when you revert other editors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:El_C#For_your_interest

176.54.39.53 (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you attributed the wrong IP address to me. Armanqur (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe or maybe not. Why did you create this strawman "Kurdish" account commenting on the very same page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dirokakurdi

176.54.39.53 (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I was wrong for doing that, but I had already been reprimanded for doing it with a one weak ban. Am I being reprimanded again for something I did months ago, which I haven't repeated since? Armanqur (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is wrong to create strawman role accounts. But it was not the answer of my question. What was your purpose for creating this strawman role account back then?

A note for the reviewing admins: I realized that "unencylopedic style" was not on the initial unblock request. It was added later after the discussion on the talk page of El C.

176.54.39.53 (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't matter now, seeing that my block has just been appealed. Now I just need to find my appeal key. Armanqur (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * What exactly would make you think that ip 80.191.203.92 is me? Armanqur (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Armanqur, I'm responding here to your email asking if there were any updates about this. In the absence of any input from the blocking admin and based on my prior assessment, I would be willing to replace the block with a topic ban on Kurdistan and Kurds, broadly construed. You could then appeal the topic ban at WP:AE, although I suspect that an appeal is likely to be declined at this time and probably not worth doing until you have made significant contributions to other topics. Does this seem acceptable to you? signed,Rosguill talk 23:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Rosguill, I appreciate your quick response, and what you're proposing does seem acceptable to me. Thank you. Out of curiosity, would a topic ban on Kurdistan and Kurds include the Mede page? Thank you. Armanqur (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Topic bans apply at the level of content, so anything at Medes related to Kurds is out of bounds. So, my educated guess would be that a lot of the claims related to the history of the Medes and their relation (or lack thereof) to Kurds is out of bounds, but claims about their historical religion or prehistory would probably be safe. That having been said, the topic ban is broadly construed, so if there's anything that you think is borderline, it's probably best to avoid touching it. signed,Rosguill talk 23:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thank you. Armanqur (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've accepted the unblock request, although do note that having reviewed relevant policies, some of the previous explanation I gave you is inaccurate: you can appeal the topic ban at WP:AN, not WP:AE, as this is a conditional unblock and not an discretionary sanction. I will also be placing a notification of the discretionary sanctions that now apply to Kurds and Kurdistan, as these were adopted since the beginning of your block. signed,Rosguill talk 23:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No objection to the sanction adjustment, but for the record, Rosguill, I didn't respond because I wasn't ping'ed. I had no knowledge about the unblock request and follow up discussion. It just seems a bit off to take action on the basis of my absence when there was no attempt to alert me to anything outstanding. El_C 05:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I thought that the on hold template would have pinged you. signed,Rosguill talk 05:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

DS notice: Kurds and Kurdistan
signed,Rosguill talk 23:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Email
Hi, Armanqur. This is to acknowledge that I am in receipt of your email, but I'm afraid I'm not available to enter into a private correspondence with you at this time. Feel free to query me here about whatever, however. El_C 01:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)