User talk:Хаченци

Please do not call something absurd without evidence, if this does not agrees your point of view like you did in talk page of [[1]]. I brought source which is under discussion but you keep calling me duplicate account when you got no evidence. Please get into normal discussion. Thank you --Volksjäger162 (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you write is perfectly described by the word absurd. You continue vandalizing the pages related to Georgian and Armenian alphabets, without having an idea what you are talking about. One should contribute on pages, when he has a simple idea about the topic. You certainly do not have. And yes - you are a duplicate account of Obitauri. There are only few persons on the planet, that would "request archaelogical proof for dating of Armenian alphabet". Read at least something before writing.

Gents, I've RPPd the pages you are both editing. Please do not turn this into an edit war. If you have information with citations for the page great, if not don't add it. Refer yourselves to the WP:SNOWBALL Policy. KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 14:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for support Chinmoku. I tried to discuss with him but he thinks I am duplicate. You can investigate it so no one will say I am dupe then.

To Хаченци: I am not vandalizing any page. Citation Needed is just used for making article better and requests source or evidence. How I vandalize anything when I just discuss something or add "Citation Needed". About who is interested in those alphabets. I am Georgian. I am interested in my country culture, as well as my neighborhood country cultures. I try to make those articles better with bringing new sources and evidences. I do not do any edit expect adding Cite request without consensus achieved. Please do not start Edit warring. I try to do my best. Cheers --Volksjäger162 (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do any investigating, I am not a clerk or an admin. I simply help others and revert vandalism. If a report is opened against you it will obviously be investigated, if you're not a sockpuppet then you have nothing to worry about. KiraChinmoku _{(T, ¤)} 14:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should read the article first, and the sources mentioned, if possible. Requesting archaeological proof is not something that has anything to do with the article, so it is vandalizing. Why dont you request archaelogical proof for the existence of Shota Rustaveli? ))) Read academical sources, there are enough available textbooks and articles in internet. Хаченци (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I brought source from Britannica which suggests that first archaeological script found, which is wrote in Armenian is from 9-10 century. It also says what Armenian traditions suggest. Oldest script from 9-10 century. We have not such proof to say with 100% support, that alphabet is from 406 AD, when other reliable source talks about oldest script found, dated 9-10 century. --Volksjäger162 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what is written in Britannica, and I am not even going to ckeck that. We are not doing research or investigation here. If you have an academical source, which would claim that Armenian alphabet is not from 5-th century, you can bring it, and we will discuss. But there is certainly no such source.

P.S. There are a lot of Armenian inscriptions from Jerusalem, dating to V-VII c., and in Armenia from VI c. There are dosens of books written in Armenian in 5 c. ALL contemporary medieval historians tell us that Armenians in 5 c. had the script. I am not going do convince you, just before writing something, read something on the subject. I mean - on Armenian alphabet, and not Armenian archaeology. Хаченци (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Armenian alphabet, script developed for the Armenian language in the 5th century ad and still in use. It was probably derived from the Pahlavi alphabet of Persia, with some Greek influences. According to local tradition, the Armenian alphabet was invented in 405 by Mesrop Mashtots, aided by Isaac (Sahak) the Great, supreme head of the Armenian Apostolic Church, and by a Greek called Rufanos. Isaac founded a school of translators and had the Bible translated into Armenian in the new script. The oldest surviving documents in Armenian date from the 9th to 10th century ad."

Source: Britannica If you can see, this source suggests, that oldest script found is from 9-10th century. It also talks about Armenian traditional view. For Wikipedia, archaeological proof is more reliable than traditional point of view. Still we must this in brackets: "(Oldest script found dates back to 9-10th century AD only)".

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Volksjäger162 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your entry at the quick checkuser section of WP:Sockpuppet investigations. As the disclaimer there tells us, that section is explicitely reserved for cases that do not involve sockpuppetry. If you suspect an editor to be involved in sockpuppetry please open a full investigation providing edit differences and other evidence. To open an investigation, go to WP:SPI and click the "show" button where it says "How to open an investigation". Then just follow the instructions written there. De728631 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit on Georgian Alphabet is reverted. Read WP:WEASEL, Unsupported attribution. Writing "Widely believed" is just weasel but nothing else, it causes bias to be appeared --Volksjäger (talk) 13:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Weasel words" are statements which appear to assert something but subtly imply something different, opposite, or stronger in the way they are made. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority with no substantial basis. There is enough basis, so it is not a weasel word. Try to rich consensus on the talk page. So far you did not give any academical source, which would say GA existed before Mashtots, and hence your edits are unexplained.

Georgian source is academical and all point of views must be respected and put together in article, like it is right now. Here is not enough basis for saying "Widely believed" and this is bias if you do this.

WP:Weasel: Unsupported attributions: "... some people say, many scholars state, it is believed/regarded, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says ..." So you must not use such words. Here you see "Many scholars state", it is same as "It's widely believed". Unsupported attribution, so not support from rules, means your version is wrong. Also sign your comments with signature and timestamp. All time I see, someone else is signing your comment left on talk page, you can find blue pencil logo and push it after you post something, so you will sign your post. --Volksjäger (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not many scholars, it's the international academical community. And the other part is the Georgian academical community. If we respect all POVs, then we have to add few more POVs, in particular some Chechen scholars have claimed that Mashtots created Asomtavruli alphabet for North-Caucasian people, and later it was used also by Georgians. Others claim that Georgians migrated to the region only in 8-9-th cenutries and started to use the alphabet. These are low valued sick scholars, whose works are not even taken serious, but they are scholars and hold academical positions, so if we follow you - their ideas should also be written in the article as "some scholars beleive that...". If the admins agree with you, I will add this POVs as equivalent to the existing ones.Хаченци (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Armenian cross.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Armenian cross.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Your recent editing history at Armenian Eternity sign shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in edit war, I am editing the article, adding sources, whereas this user is trying to prevent the improvement of the article. I would like to pay your attention, that the whole contribution of the user is restricted with this single article, and the related topic. There is no doubt, that his registration and participaton in WP is aimed to deletion of the article. Removing claims supported with sources without even talking on Talk page is not something normal. Хаченци (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Armenian Eternity sign. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I find my block totally unfair. Before starting the editions, I made several comments on talk page. I brought sources (encyclopedias and dictionaries), showing the text is wrong. The reason for my revertions was not that I was thinking the text is wrong or bad, but because all existing in the article sources were refuting the claim of that part of the text. I did not get any answer from User:Vahram_Mekhitarian, with whom I was engaged in war. I guess the administrators completely ignored that fact. I did not report on User:Vahram_Mekhitarian, for he is relatively new in WP and was already blocked twice. The third block would be a long-term one. I understand, that my behaviour was wrong, and I should first report User:Vahram_Mekhitarian, but I simply did not want to do any harm to User:Vahram_Mekhitarian, since he is of the age of my father, and a professor of physics in a university I have once studied. Хаченци (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is a simple content dispute. You may not continuously revert back to your preferred version in lieu of resolving the actual dispute. Kuru (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2013 (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.

A content dispute does not give you the right to edit war. Your choice was not (a) continue warring or (b) report the other user, but (c) stop reverting. You were warned by Dougweller above a few days ago about edit warring, you denied it, and then resumed your battle today. That's what I couldn't ignore.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see. Just one question, to be sure I got it - so, even if the user simply deletes a sourced text, I cannot revert it more than three times per day, without reporting? I mean, that was the case both with the warning by Dougweller and the block by Bbb23. So, even if someon writes a total bulshit, I can't revert it, if I already did two edits, is it correct? Хаченци (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, breaching WP:3RR requires four reverts, not three (you said it right the first time but not the second time in your comment), although one can be blocked for edit warring even if one hasn't breached 3RR. Second, the exemptions for edit warring are spelled out in the policy at WP:3RRNO. I don't think any of those exemptions applies here. Be very careful in interpreting the exemptions because if an administrator disagrees with you, you may still be blocked. What you think of as "total bullshit" and what another thinks may differ. Content disputes are rarely black and white. Finally, you don't have to report; you just have to stop. Whether you report is up to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that an unexplained deletion of sourced material can be described as "total bullshit"? Хаченци (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your question, it depends on the material. However, that wasn't today's war. The other user was adding a section called Name and you were removing it, so how is your question relevant to your block? I think what you really mean is that the material the other user was adding was "total bullshit", thereby giving you the right to remove it.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not correct. It was not my opinion, that it is total bullshit. The section added by the other user contained a source, which actually rejects the claim mentioned in the text. The source itself was in Armenian language, so unfortunately you can't check it (you can ask some other Armenian users however). That was my point, I mentioned on TP. It's like writing "The official language of USA is German" and give a source, where it is written it's English. The text I was deleting was of that type. The block is not a problem, I can live a day without WP. I just fill not a serious approach from administrators. I don't think you even read the Talk page or looked at the contribution history of me or the other user. Хаченци (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Writing a Azerbaijani name for the provinces, that all of the Inhabited are Azerbaijani people, Need not Azerbaijani language was official.--Serzhik (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but warning for what? And couldn't you clarify - who are you for warning other users? And you are you for choosing which name should or should not be written? Хаченци (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urartu

Please take this to the article talk page. I've warned the editor for 3RR. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]