User talk:Aruturo Van Kaigan

Antivandalism struggle

My struggle against vandalism

The user is definitely here to build an encyclopedia in accordance with the wikipedia editing rules:

Rule 3. Be bold, but not reckless

Rule 6. Cite, cite, cite

Rule 9. Write neutrally and with due weigh

If the 1864 British Royal Geography Society outlet is "disputed", so shall all other unreliable sources written non-academically by such authors as Galichian, who is/was an engineer and not a historian. The "unrealiable source" was not put random but with a reason. X together with Y deleted the refernce to the 1864 document reference without trying to reach any consensus with me. What is the topic? The topic is whether the term "Azerbaijan" was used in attitude to the region of the contemporary Azerbaijan Republic before 1918 or not. X wrote without stressing the authorsip that the term "Azerbaijan" was never used in the area of its current location before 1918, reffering to several papers, the main topic of which was not even relevant to the discussed issue. I, in my turn, put the reference to the 1864 British Royal Geography Society outlet that proved the usage of the term in relation to the exact region long before 1918. What I got in response, is the erasion of my edits, as if an engineer Galichian's book stance written in the 21st century was more reliable than the 19th century British Geographer, who traveled to the region long before 1918. The existence of this and many other documents proved the unreliability of the citations provided by X. Unlike X and Y, I did not erase their sentences, but added mine, which were vandalized with no respect either to me or the basic rules of Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Hence, I believe, that adding ECP would not improve the quality of the page, considering the upper-mentioned facts. I kindly ask the respectable administration to give me some time to reach 500 edits. I also kindly ask to restrict X from vandalism, supporting the free nature of Wikipedia. Source for the 1864 British document: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1799149 Respectfully yours,

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Azerbaijani nationalism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's collaborate and try to reach a consensus. Aruturo Van Kaigan (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, are you an officially appointed editor in Wikipedia, or Wikipedia is still designed as Free Encyclopedia? Aruturo Van Kaigan (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also be blocked for edit wars? Aruturo Van Kaigan (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Azerbaijani nationalism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. [1] // Timothy :: talk 18:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not start any edit war. It was started by HistoryofIran who violates the principles of Wikipedia.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

Respectfully yours, Aruturo Van Kaigan (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. If you have questions, please request help at the Teahouse. // Timothy :: talk 18:32, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you, please, restrict Historyofiran from vandalizing wikipedia pages?

Respectfully yours, Aruturo Van Kaigan (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should learn what "vandalism" means before randomly accusing others of it. Also, you're not even allowed to edit this type of articles [2]. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.' There are, of course, more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism. Aruturo Van Kaigan (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge. The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. There are, of course, more juvenile forms of vandalism, such as adding irrelevant obscenities or crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. Abusive creation or usage of user accounts and IP addresses may also constitute vandalism Aruturo Van Kaigan (talk) 07:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 08:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your notice. I have already written my answer there. Aruturo Van Kaigan (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I deny the fact of any nationalistic POV from my side. I edited 'Azerbaijani Nationalism' page but the topic of editors confrontation was not even about nationalism, but geographical terminology. My edits were erased without any consensus with me, I did not know that accusing other editors of vandalism(even if they do so) is considered violation or a personal attack. At the end of the day, I am relatively new to Wikipedia. Please, reconsider your decision, as I intend to contribute to the project.Respectfully yours, Aruturo Van Kaigan (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's not a personal attack to call actual vandals, vandals, but removing your edits for violating contentious topic sanctions, or just for disagreeing with them, is not vandalism. I think your inappropriate behavior would resume if the block were lifted, so I decline to do so. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.