User talk:DriedGrape/Archive 1

January 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Asala has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Asala was changed by DriedGrape (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.882427 on 2021-01-01T14:15:31+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that

Hey, just wanted to give a quick apology for my extremely over-hasty reversion on Asala. I made the fatal mistake of assuming that because you reverted ClueBotNG, it MUST be vandalism. I really, REALLY should know better than that. Though, in my (admittedly small) defense, I was on the verge of changing it back when you did so yourself. Thegreatluigi (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. -DriedGrape

March 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not randomly accuse others of bias just because you don't agree with them. I won't hestitate to report you if you can't behave accordingly. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Lake Van: I have reverted your edit as a matter of accuracy. According to the article on Armenian Highlands, the region (which has no other alternate names listed in the intro that don't include "Armenian") includes areas in Turkey and other countries. By contrast, the Eastern Anatolia Region is a region of Turkey. (If Lake Van is the largest lake in Turkey, and if we know it is in Eastern Anatolia, then by logical extension it's the largest lake in the region.)

Please engage in discussion on the talk page and get consensus before changing this information. —C.Fred (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

Then, my edit was not inaccurate was it? Considering the Eastern Anatolia Region ALSO includes Lake Van, therefore they can both be used within the article and be factually correct, with the Eastern Anatolia Region being more accurate as the lake itself is IN Turkey. I will be adding in "and the Eastern Anatolia Region" to the description since it is also the largest lake in the Eastern Anatolia Region.

I have restructured the sentence to go from smallest region to largest: the Eastern Anatolia Region (a subdivision of turkey), Turkey, and the Armenian Highlands. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You put it in the wrong order. Turkey has a area of about 780.000 km^2.

The Eastern Anatolia Region, at 165,436 sq km, is smaller. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about Turkey being the largest of all of them.

True, in terms of raw area: the Armenian Highlands are 400,000 sq km. However, the Armenian Highlands span multiple countries, so the order of region of country, country, multi-country region makes sense. It's the largest not just in Turkey but also in the AH of any of the countries that it spans. —C.Fred (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Turkish War of Independence. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. For diff. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

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.

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.

FDW777 (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Leman Altınçekiç.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Leman Altınçekiç.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the following documentation

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. El_C 00:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned indefinitely from editing or discussing anything to do with the WP:AA2 topic area, including anything to do with the Armenian genocide, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned because your edit warring in the topic area has proven disruptive. In the past 24 hours alone, you've been reverting and re-reverting multiple users on multiple pages. Curiously, your very first edit was also revert (diff).

In any case, you are not observing WP:BRD or WP:ONUS, as would be expected when many of your edits get reverted by several different contributors. In addition, you cast aspersions against one of the editors who objected to your changes by intimating that they're hounding you (diff). What is that about? I expect someone who cites "WP:BLUE" in an edit summary (diff) to be WP:BLUESKY-aware that watchlists exist.

In short, this kind of conduct is untenable. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you wish to return to editing the topic area, my suggestion would be for you to work on proving that you are able to edit other, less controversial areas of the project for a sustained period without serious problems (thereby making an appeal of this sanction much more likely to succeed).

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:AA2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. El_C 05:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctioned (DriedGrape)

Moved from my talk page El_C 06:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I have just noticed I been sanctioned (diff) and I'd like to make my case to you before re-gaining trust to make an appeal.

I have noticed the editor who I accused of disruptive reverting also made a section on your talk page and I'd like to explain myself regarding the accusations against me. First off, the reversion in questions were done due to removal of content that was done without any attempt at a discussion at the talk page of said articles. While BRD was claimed for the reason behind the reversion, no attempt at reaching a consensus was given, only after a discussion section which I started, had replies which held no weight in support of edits I reverted. The very first incident was on removal of information from a stable version of the article due to WP:VAGUE, after editing the section to appeal to the complaints (diff), showing good faith. Funnily enough, I was only reverting disruptive edits, which were done without waiting for a discussion.

The second and third incidents [1], [2] happened after the editor reverted my recent edits on certain articles which were cited, or were factual fixing and were not contested. Again, a BRD was called in the edit reason but no attempt at discussion was actually made. Therefore, again, it was just a disruptive edit disguised as call for BRD. I had more than enough reason to assume this was just vandalism and as such tried to keep the article in good shape, even then, I attempted discussion and always gave extensive reasoning for my reverts. This is far from edit warring.

I am trying to refrain from turning this message into WP:NOTTHEM, however, I believe you are misinformed in what happened and I urge you to at least briefly look over the history. Either way, I hope you will heed my concerns. Take care. DriedGrape (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know quite a bit about Wikipedia sanctions regime, like citing NOTTHEM, so I expect you also to know about WP:DR and the specific WP:DRRs that are available when at an impasse, as opposed to just continuing to revert. Also, your latest article talk page comments are very recent (today's), so more time should have been extended by you for replies, in any event. El_C 06:01, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I probably was quite hasty regarding discussion. However, the initial reverts which I re-reverted being done without any prior attempts at discussion, along with poor explanations behind said reverts led me to believe they were in bad faith or vandalism. Which is why I requested the protection for ASALA in the first place. I am always willing to assume good faith, and I often do but I had reason to believe this wasn't the case. However, I can see, I was sloppy in these incidents and I will definitely be more aware next time. Thank you. DriedGrape (talk) 06:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but next time for this topic area will be in a while, I suppose is the bottom line. Also, would you like me to redact your IP from when you just accidentally posted while logged out? El_C 06:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. DriedGrape (talk) 06:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. El_C 06:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note these special rules for editing Eastern Europe and the Balkans

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 Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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.

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.--Dr. K. 01:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Khirurg (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lake Van. 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. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AE block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for topic ban violations, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

El_C 09:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AE block 2

To enforce an arbitration decision and for topic ban violations (again), you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

El_C 13:23, 7 December 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. DriedGrape (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are no currently active blocks for this username. SQL ^{Query Me!} 12:58, 28 December 2021 (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 El_C or whoever is reviewing my appeal. If you were to check my edit history and the edits themselves, you would see they are not subject to my arbitration block. I have been updating population info on the provinces of Turkey going alphabetically and fixing minor mistakes, grammar or structural oddities: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. During my works, I have done a minor restructering on the Ağrı Province to combine relevant paragraphs in the lead while updating the population info, specifically the first lead paragraph with the last, latter of which included general info like the provincial capital, and the current governer: [8] It was a minor edit and did not in any way change the meaning of the article.

I have just now saw what I was also accused of, the Azeri name I have added on Kars was already existent in the stable version and was recently mistakenly removed by another editor: [9] as I mentioned in the edit reason. Which while probably was a honest mistake on the other editors part, would be vandalism, correcting of which is within WP:BANEX. I have simply added it back: [10]. And like I said, I did not remove any info relating to Armenia on Ağrı but rather combined the relevant paragraphs together, as the editor who reported me has admitted in your talk page later as a reply. I do not think that is in any way a violation of my sanction. It didn't even cross my mind at the time and I was pretty appalled when I saw I was blocked. I hope you reconsider and let me get back to it. Thanks. DriedGrape (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DriedGrape, you decide. I'd rather not do this for you. They are not the same. AE is structured and you'd have to format it according to {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}, which I'd expect you to draft here, then I'd copy it to the noticeboard. By contrast, AN is freeflowing, so I could just copy your above request with immediate effect.

But I think it'd be a waste of time because it's a poor unblock request. I say this since I was quite clear in the TBAN notice that this sanction goes wide (i.e. major, minor, whatever), even linking to WP:BROADLY at the end. Secondly, the argument that WP:BANEX applies on the basis of you having thought the edit in question was vandalism... it's a stretch. And there's more than one problematic edit anyway. Had you taken it to WP:AIV, I sort of doubt an admin would have acted on it as vandalism.

But you do as you will. If you still wanna go through with it, let me know which of those two venues you prefer. El_C 13:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can take it straight to AN, I do not have much else to add and I believe I have made myself clear already. I would argue my edits are not even WP:BROADLY either. And removal of content without reason, is exactly what vandalism would be. Again, as tbe user has stated in their reason, they meant to remove a duplicate but accidentally removed both. This and moving a paragraph one line down constituting a two week block is the stretch in my eyes. DriedGrape (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#DriedGrape_AE_block_appeal. El_C 03:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]