User talk:Ungitow

{{}}

May 2022

Hello, I'm Semsûrî. I noticed that you recently removed content from Arapgir without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Semsûrî (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made the edits because the Armenian history of the city was given undue weight. They also used poor quality sources. This is a presently-inhabited city in modern Turkey and yet the entire article is about Armenians in the 19th century. Also I corrected the source citations. I will restore my edit Ungitow (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding info without sources/removing sourced info is not a smart idea. --Semsûrî (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should find reliable sources that back you instead. --Semsûrî (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the Talk page, imagine if the entire page of Topeka Kansas was only about a Filipino community there. It's not an appropriate article as per proper weight and neutrality. It also has little to no relevance. I removed irrelevant parts that were being given undue weight, and I removed a citation that the Arapgir town itself has a majority Kurdish population. The demographics indicate that Arapgir town has Turks and some surrounding villages have Kurds. Ungitow (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Arapgir. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Adakiko (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed content that had little to no relevance to the page. This content was cited but it was irrelevant. Maybe I should add some cited/sourced info about ketchup into the page on Arapgir too. What relevance would that have? "Ketchup is a sauce with vinegar and tomato"(source...). Refer to my talk page and edit summaries to see my reasoning and engage that reasoning if you want to dispute the edit. Ungitow (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Arapgir. 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. Adakiko (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AdakikoWhy don't you engage my reasoning instead of taking the Semsuri user's opinion at face value? Ungitow (talk) 08:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring, discuss the matter on the talk page, get wp:consensus, then edit. See wp:BRD. Adakiko (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing it. The article is in extremely poor condition. If you want more sources re the demographics, here is the City's own website https://www.arapgir.bel.tr/icerikdetay.aspx?icerikid=32.

I'm not edit warring, I fixed the article and this Semsuri user reverted my fixes and then presumably contacted you. He also reverted my edits to another page (Again erroneously claiming I didn't use sources). If he wants to engage my talk page he can do so and I will regard his input. I make a talk-contribution for every major edit I make and yet he has not responded at all on the Talk. Ungitow (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no discussion between us. I see you are also wp:edit warring on Stanford J. Shaw. Consider this a second notice. Adakiko (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You should try wp:Notifications for Semsuri. Adakiko (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AdakikoIs he the king of that page? Why is he the arbiter? Or for the Stanford shaw page? You should honestly read it before and after and let me know what you think. Should Wikipedia be based on sentences like 'Shaw's views agree with the Turkish government view so he is wrong'. Or 'the death threat and bombing assassination attempt on Shaw was not really because campus Hillel said so' (source: Armenian news weekly). Ungitow (talk) 09:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I did @Adakikoping him. I'm sure you're aware but there are people out there with a political agenda who want to craft pages to fit their views, and they have done so in this case, and I am being prevented from fixing the page. If you or some other editor is the arbiter. I trust you can tell the difference from reviewing the changes. Ungitow (talk) 09:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you will soon find yourself wp:blocked for edit warring. With your wp:BATTLEGROUND mindset, I suspect you will have few sympathizers. I doubt any wp:administrators are reverting you. The pages have probably been that way for years. I doubt it will make much difference if it take a week or two to fix. Adakiko (talk) 09:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'm curious. Who are the deciders? Do we vote? Or are there just a few users who get to report me to you and then have the moral high ground? I made good edits and I explained my reasons. Nobody engaged my reasons. I'll leave it here and see what happens but I doubt they will. Ungitow (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Blablubbs (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want to build an encyclopedia. I removed bad sourced edits. Let's cover some ground. I cited Shaw's views on the Armenian events, and so I got the 'denial of Armenian Genocide' block against me. I removed references to the 'Armenian Genocide' from Arapgir because I don't see the relevance. Do you put 'there was a synagogue here' on every single European town? It sounds like I'm being targeted by some users because I'm asking them to edit articles correctly. The 'sources' I deleted are extremely low quality and aren't accurate reflections of their own citations. I wonder if anyone has read any of this content. @BlablubbsUngitow (talk) 11:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't come close to addressing the problems here. For example, you don't even mention your violations of WP:EW. Yamla (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2022 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Ok I will wait a few weeks to see what people say. But I don't understand at what point does it become 'edit wars' or just we disagree. What if we (me and one other user only) disagree. What happens then? We just agree to disagree or let others review @yamla Ungitow (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You use the article talk page. You've already been told this. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:31, 2 May 2022 (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.

Hello Ungitow (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

So they didn’t tell me they would permanently ban me if I reverted the edit. Also, my question is this: so we use the talk page and fundamentally disagree. What happens then? Ungitow (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. See dispute resolution. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2022 (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.

On the above question, see WP:DR. But give talk a chance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I want to request an unblock. I’ll give it a chance as per the prior discussion but that one user who keeps reverting my edits is not interested in talking about this. The article as written is a smear on this Ottoman history luminary, doesn’t uses facts but just cites opinions of a small clique of scholars (3 professors). I will put in citations from Heath Lowry, Justin Mccartyhy, Ilber Ortay to say that Shaw is a great historian, so I’ll pursue the ordinary routes and I’ll refrain from reverting too much within 24 hours as per guidelines. Ungitow (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As well as unblocks needing to be about you, not those you were conflicting with, I also question whether you've really read our guide to unblocking and the links to edit warring. While WP:3RR is a clearcut marker of edit warring, you can easily continue edit warring without breaching it. Your unblock request suggests that there would be a high likelihood of slow edit warring. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2022 (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.