User talk:SilkTork/AMA Archive/Urartu

Re: Urartu article dispute

Hello i can be involved but im not too knowledgeably but i know alot of good information from historians about urartu im not too sure though if i can help. Nareklm 11:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You made a couple of reverts of Dacy69's edits. But you also explained your actions on his talk page. I think you did OK. Blunt reverts to a new editor can be upsetting, especially when it appears as though people are ganging up. It's a lesson we can all learn that sympathetic explanations and patience work better than blunt reverts. Thanks for getting back to me. SilkTork 19:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Urartu

Greetings Steve, Thanks for the kinds words. Well that's not what the problem is about at all. Nor do I consider the issue at hand a dispute. The article states that Armenians speak an Indo-European language like English while Urartians spoke a Hurro-Urartian language like akin to the earlier Hurrian. I'm saying that doesn't need to be stated more than once, Dacy seems to think a redundancy is necessary for reasons he fails to explain.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Urartu

Actually, I'm no way involved in the matter. The only edit I made was fully protecting the article per request at WP:RFPP. By the way, let me know when/if the dispute is resolved, so that I can unprotect the page. Nishkid 64 17:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The linguist issue doesnt belong in History of Armenia section

This should go in the "language" pages not in the Antiquity section of Armenia:

Majority of linguists classify the Urartian language as part of the Hurro-Urartian family, which was an elite language spoken during the time.

We already put in the "language" pages, so this sentence doesnt belong in the Anitquity of Armenia section about language issues. Ararat arev 07:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Urartu case

First of all, I would like to complain about spying and stalking on all my activities from users like Nareklm. The latter recently interfered in page "Request of Assistance" and removed a reference to personal attack which I reported to PAIN. I realize that my link is not valid anymore since it was archived. But case was reported - I have been insulted by Eupator.

I have taken a look at the PAIN page and also at the editing out of Eupator's comment "Wipe the foam for a second." Are there any other examples of Eupator's behaviour that you'd like me to look at? SilkTork 18:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now - about Urartu.

First - I made my references. Those users have been removed references. Wikipedia has a quite strong guidance about that. Further - about relevancy of my text, actually not only mine - there is other users who supported me)

I argue that section of "Ethnic Composition" in page Urartu and page "Antiquity" in page Armenia in its current version imply ethnic continuity and strong bonds between people who lived in Urartu (Academicians for example use term 'people of Urartu') and Armenians, who (sources I quoted say) moved in Urartu in 7-6 BC. My argument is not only about language diferrences. It is about ethnic and cultural ones. My arguments are on 'Request of Assistance' page.

I'd like to quote professional historian about Urartu-Armenia nexus:

Philip L. Kohl, Clare Fawcett. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (New Directions in Archaeology). Page 157: "No less problematic are heavily slanted interpretations of the Urartian kingdom, the first historically attested state in Transcaucasia (ninth to seventh centuries BC). Armenian chauvinists must explain why this state, a worthy adversary of the neo-Assyrian Empire of northern Mesopotamia and one that expanded over much of "historic Armenia," composed its royal cuneiform inscriptions in Urartian, a non Indo-European ( i.e., non-Armenian) language, related to Hurrian and ancestral to the Northeastern Caucasian family of languages spoken today by different peoples in Daghestan, Chechenia, and Ingushetia (see Jankowska 1991:231). Reasonable historical hypotheses can be advanced for a Proto-Armenian component to this kingdom, and there is a real sense in which the Armenians are the cultural heirs of Urartu, but an essentialist view of Armenian culture which equates it precisely with the Urartian kingdom cannot be sustained. One must distinguish between popular and professional Armenian interpretations of Urartu, the latter being subtler and more difficult to evaluate. Thus, popular reference to the "Piotrovskii problem" is based on the fact that B.B. Piotrovskii, the late Director of the Hermitage in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) and former head of the excavations at Karmir Blur (the ancient Urartian capital of Teishebaine now located within the city of Yerevan), had quite reasonably maintained that the mighty Urartian Iron Age kingdom did not constitute the first Armenian state for the reasons stated above; the "problem" only existed for those who wanted Armenians always to have lived in and controlled "historic Armenia" until the later ravages wrought by Romans, Persians, Arabs, and Turks. More discriminating professional archaeologists, who may accept the reasonable theory that the ethnogenesis or formation of Armenian culture occurred during post-Urartian Achaemenid times, extol the might of the Urartians and see them exercising political control over most of eastern Anatolia, western Iran, and Transcaucasia; in this respect they remain the direct precursors of the Armenian kingdom under Tigran II."

Finally, the problem is not only in the content of dispute itself. It is also about behavior of users - their insults, reluctuance to accomodate various views.--Dacy69 15:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad temper is always unacceptable, but it has to be admitted can occur when people have different points of view on a subject and are not always talking them through fully before editing. Did you notice when the insults started? What had you done to cause the insults? Were the insults related to the editing of the Urartu article?

Would you like us to deal with the insults first or the editing of the article? Or do you feel the two are related and should be dealt with together? Can you show me examples of the insults? SilkTork 01:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different languages different times

There were different languages spoken at those times, and there are different languages (and even multiple languages) spoke now. For example, before ww2, French was spoken by Armenians too. Doesnt mean Armenians were French. This is the same issue, Mitanni used Akkadian at that "time", doesnt mean Mitanni was Akkadian ethnicity. Same goes with Urartu's time, doesnt mean the language is the reason to say "Oh look see, thats not Armenians!". The language was used at that "time" and also Armenian was spoken as well, just like the examples I gave you of today.

Here is an example of Mitanni's time:

"This letter is written in Akkadian, the diplomatic language of Mesopotamia at the time. It is addressed to Amenhotep III from Tushratta, king of Mitanni"

Doesnt mean Mitanni was of Akkadian ethnicity. Ararat arev 16:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

He is not a newcomer. He's an Azeri Turk who has only been involved in Armenian articles ever since he registered for obvious reasons. I have considerable evidence to request a checkuser as I suspect he's a sockpuppet of User:AdilBaguirov.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adil Baguirov, a known and paid Azeri radical nationalist and a government agent appeared on Wikipedia after a long slumber on December 10, on that day he made edits on Armenia and Urartu articles. The exact two articles that were edited by Dacy69 within the past few hours supporting the exact same pov. Another Azeri user shows up out of nowhere supporting the other Azeri's same pov? Their wording is pretty much identical as well. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is entirely likely. Adil Baguirov may have been watching those articles, and then came in to support Dacy69. There is no evidence for your suspicion that the users are sockpuppets, other than a curious co-incidence of timing. The language used by the users of the two accounts is very different. Nor, even if they were the same user, is there any reason to conduct a check. A user may have more than one account if wished. SilkTork 23:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the edits of both users. There appears to be no reason to call for a check. Mostly the editing does not overlap, other than the curious incident of editing on the Uratu article on Dec 11th which is supportive of Dacy69 and occurs directly after Dacy69 stopped editing. That incident apart, there is no evidence of misuse of the accounts. The editing on Dec 11th would be frowned upon if it was Dacy69 as being misleading, but is not in itself disruptive enough to justify a check. Given the available evidence I would suggest we continue to treat Dacy69 as a new editor, and give him the benefit of the doubt. Naturally, future edits by AdilBaguirov which are supportive of Dacy69 would be looked at closely. SilkTork 19:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make my input in this section since it is about me.-- Well, I told Eupator once that I am not Adil Baguirov. I am from Canada. Do whatever check is necessary to identify me. About Adil's support - I know many other users like Adil who simphatetic to my proposal. The user Thanatosimii, for example, on page Armenia - we argue about the same. He is not Azeri, by the way. About ethnic identity - I am not going to conceal it - I am Azerbaijani with mixture of Georgian and Caucasian. But for the purposes of my work in Wikipedia - I have broader interests rather than my ethnic identity. I am historian by training. And I am going to work on many articles. Now I concentrate on Armenia because some users wants to falsify history and steal heritage from others - Georgians, Azerbaijanis and North Caucasians. I criticized on other occasion in the media the weak historical theories in Azerbaijan. It is also a problem in Georgia, Russia and many other places poisoned by nationalism. Therefore, I believe, for my purposes in Wikipedia, ethnic affiliation is not a priority. It is about the science of history and accuracy. Another wrong info - I am not involved on Armenia articles only. The only truth that I am a newcomer. 3 months ago I talked with professional historians in Toronto University who pointed me to many inaccuracies and bias of Wikipedia which is becoming more and more popular. We can only regret that it falls into nationalistic scope. I learnt about Armenia-related pages from that time. And I decided to dedicate some of my free time to Wikipedia. My other area of professional interest is international affairs which is also full of controversy in the Encyclopedia. I hope that I was quite explicit. Finally, no matter who I am, other users should not vandalize my page, impose their viewpoints, insult me, etc. They should accept that there is a volume of studies on the subject matter; different and sometimes opposite to each other, and we need to accomodate them all, for God's sake, to be academic, not amateur-nationalist portal.--Dacy69 19:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC) And forget to mention - it was implied that Aduil suspiciously continued my editing then I stopped. It was only once. And why not, if he supports my idea. If you look closely on many pages, 4 users - Eupator, TigrantheGreat, Nareklm, Ararat rev is replacing one another to keep their same wording. How it can regarded?--Dacy69 20:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a check. The accusation of sockpuppetry doesn't stand up. While the co-incidence of the editing cannot be ignored, it doesn't amount to anything significant. You have no need to defend yourself against the sockpuppet claim, and I suggest you ignore such accusations. The claims reflect badly on the accusers, and can make them appear to be petty and vindictive. SilkTork 19:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are not the same im new to wikipedia first of all and i think we know why we revert we deal with this kind of nationalism daily from people like you you're disregarding all kinds of historian facts and adding your own and last time you were getting information from another wikipedia based website when you supposable quote historians eupator proved you wrong i don't revert for no reason. Also we seem to be active wikipedians thats why and i think they know what there doing. Nareklm 09:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Dacy69

Hi, I am the first person who believed that Dacy69 is Adil, for various reasons, and only believed so after runing my own investigation.

Observations from the merging test suggest that there is a significant probability that Dacy69 is Adil Baguirov. (see at the bottom), Red is Dacy69, blue is Adil Baguirov,(see my Annex) I have run a proximal test by using samples of past contributions of Adil (for time set etc.) (and prefer to keep the sampling method (the control group (which is first previous Adil contribution time behaviours, and the other being a series of 10 users which are known to not be socks and contributing in a same article))Adil specialise in media information(particularly Internet), and any checkusers will clean him, which I knew from the beginning. Any IP based system won't track this sort of socks, and Adil if he wanted to use socks would know that(probably using proxies).

First observation is that Adil has reappeared on Wikipedia on December 10, while his last contribution before that was July 25. Dacy69 started contributing on December 9, a day before Adil reappeared, and on the two major articles where Dacy69 has contributed in.

Now, I have decided to search for evidences that Adil account could have been used to escape the 3RR, which would futher confirm a high probability that both users are the same person. I have checked the first contribution Adil has made on December 10.(first for months) It was an edit on Urartu article, to reestablish an edit of Dacy69. This edit of Dacy69 was reverted by Ararat arev, [1], which Dacy69 has reestablished, [2]. Reverted back this time not by Ararat arev, but Nareklm [3]. This time around, for the new reverter which is Nareklm, not Dacy69 has reverted but Adil [4]. This edit was the first one by Adil since July 25. The significant probability that both are the same becomes highly significant by this revert for various reasons. First, Adil has acted on the date of December 10 only in the profit of Dacy69 before disapearing again. Having contributed on Urartu and Armenia articles only, the two articles which Dacy69 was active on. Having myself analysed various socks, I am well aware of the socks psychology, it is common that another alias of the same person become active in editing when another editor than the initial one having reverted him has edited. This is also what happened. Another thing, is that the same day both alias have been used, Khoikhoi has reminded Dacy69 of the 3RR. [5]. There also appear to have been a patern of switching both aliases depending if new reverters entered in the revert war. But I won't enter in detail. But this is what I will add though, Dacy69 claimed specialisation in history does not make sense, for those reasons. Paytakaran being claimed to be oe of his specialisations. The number of scholars specialising in it are very few in numbers, and checking databases of published records, I have not find any paper or work on that subject published by a Canadian historian. Also, in terms of probability, it defy logic, that Adil who uses the same grammar, the same sort of speach, interested on the same exact particular subject will just poof reappear after months of absence to revert to Dacy69 changes and this just one day after Dacy69 registration. Not only this, but the edit summary presented by Adil to justify it is as if he was defending his own edit.

I am just saying those few things for you to understand that the accusation I levelled against Dacy69 is not without ground. But also, I understand that since Adil is not a banned user, he could creat any new login and it is not like I am presenting this accusation in any given occasion. I am just saying that there is something fishy out there, that's all, I am also excluding various other reasons that makes me believe that he is Adil.

Now, regarding his edit, the problem in his edit, is that it supposes that someone claims that Urartians are Armenians, it is based on the assumpton of the opposit claim (which again was known to be one of Adil behaviors). Urartu was an Empire, a multicultural Empire. The rulling language was possibly or probably Hurrians. Dacy69 assumption revolves around assuming that Ottoman Turkey (Ottoman Empire) was not inhabited by Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, and that we are forced to find such patched continuity as the one worded by Dacy69. Just to quote from an author: In classical antiquity there were Alarodians, Karduchoi, Khalybes, Khaldaioi, Armenians, Taokhoi, Scythians, and Persians in the area. Urartu as a place inhabited by one ethnic group would be an historical anomaly. (Paul Zimansky, Urartian Material Culture As State Assemblage: An Anomaly in the Archaeology of Empire, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 299/300, The Archaeology of Empire in Ancient Anatolia. (Aug. - Nov., 1995) p.104). While I have not reverted Dacy69, I would probably do so, not to delete cited references, but his erronous use of it.

(Annex)

11 December 2006

14:45, 11 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Urartu (→Ethnic Composition)
14:41, 11 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Urartu (Urartu Ethnic Composition)
14:33, 11 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dacy69 (→Urartu)
03:30, 11 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Yerevan
03:27, 11 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Urartu
03:25, 11 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Urartu
03:22, 11 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Armenia (→Antiquity)
03:20, 11 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Armenia (→Antiquity)
03:08, 11 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Armenia (→Urartu etnic composition)

10 December 2006

23:51, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Clevelander (→Urartu)
23:50, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m User talk:Clevelander (→Urartu)
23:50, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Clevelander (Urartu)
23:24, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Urartu (rvv - it's not POV, it's an important scholarly source from one of the fathers of Urartean studies. Language can be polished, but the source & essence can't be removed - that's POV, when u remove it)
23:17, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Armenia (rvv - Arara arev, stop removing well-cited and extremely relevant section)
23:01, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) m Armenia (added back the Urartu ethnic paragraph)
22:56, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Urartu (rvv - sections on ethnic comp, etc, are important and backed up by authoritative sources, hence should not be removed by vandals)
21:40, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Khoikhoi (request for mediation on Armenia and Urartu case)
21:36, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Armenia (→Urartu etnic composition)
16:01, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Khoikhoi (→Please protect my contribution and my discussion page from vandalism)
15:51, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Khoikhoi (→Please tell dacy to stop changing information)
15:45, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Armenia (→Antiquity)
05:44, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Armenia (→Antiquity)
05:33, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Urartu
05:20, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Armenia (→Urartu etnic composition)
05:19, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Armenia (Urartu etnic composition)
04:58, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dacy69 (→Persians call us Armani even today from the 2300 BC Akkadian inscriptions)
04:46, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Khoikhoi (→Please protect my contribution and my discussion page from vandalism)
04:45, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Khoikhoi (Please protect my contribution and my discussion page from vandalism)
04:41, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dacy69 (→Persians call us Armani even today from the 2300 BC Akkadian inscriptions)
04:32, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Khoikhoi (→Armenia -- ethnic composition of Urartu)
04:31, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Khoikhoi (Armenia -- ethnic composition of Urartu)
04:24, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Armenia
04:21, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dacy69 (→Persians call us Armani even today from the 2300 BC Akkadian inscriptions)
04:19, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Yerevan (→Russian liberation and control)
04:15, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dacy69
03:19, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Armenia
03:14, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Urartu (→Ethnic Composition)
03:07, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Urartu
03:05, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Khoikhoi
03:01, 10 December 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Dacy69 (→Persians call us Armani even today from the 2300 BC Akkadian inscriptions)

9 December 2006

04:54, 9 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (→Current requests for unprotection)
04:49, 9 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Talk:Armenia (Armenian in Antiquity)
04:37, 9 December 2006 (hist) (diff) Yerevan (→Russian liberation and control)

Fad (ix) 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing your concerns to me. Yes. I did look at edits when deciding if Dacy69 was using a sock-puppet. There are several ways of interpreting the evidence. One is that there is more than one person who shares Dacy69's interests and views, and who would be supportive of his edits. I find that plausible. As there is no conclusive evidence, only suspicion, that he is a sock-puppet, and as at Wiki we always assume Good Faith, I can only conclude that Dacy69 is not a sock-puppet. As for the edits. The edit as it currently stands shows alternative views. This is appropriate. What are you proposing? SilkTork 21:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you have answered here, I could not have guessed you have answered. The thing is that it is not as if I was dismissing him because I consider him as a sock, even if I am convinced both are the same (I will keep some of the informations for his own sake). Assume good faith concerns his edits, what touch directly Wikipedia, I just accused him two times and never used that to dimiss him. Regarding his edits, I am not proposing something, I presented one example from a publication that Urartu was a multi-cultural empire, I also presented Dacy69 an example of a source contradicting with his Britannica source. But the main problem with Dacy69 edit, is not much of the source but again like I said previously it is used as an answer to something which the article does not suppose. The article is about Urartu, covering the ethnicities there fine, but singling Armenians and highlining them to a percieved point can not be considered as a good faith edit. What Dacy69 want the article to say in a way is. "You know what, Armenians have comme years after in that land, they are not Urartians." And if you check my quotations you will see the issue of ethnicity is not limited to the Armenians. Fad (ix) 07:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I don't think we should be making assumptions and speculations about Dacy69's intentions. Rather, we should be looking at the article itself. What is your problem with the article itself? Forget Dacy69 - just look at the article and let me know your concerns about the truth and accuracy of what is said. SilkTork 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting -- it does not surprise me that Fadix decided to make-up such stories and invest so much time into his "investigation". Good that I watch the activity of such users who resort to any kind of blackmail and harrassment (they've done it before to me). For the record, I don't know who Dacy69 is and never talked to him, and thus of course am not the same person -- not sure when he appeared, but I've been here long enough, albeit not as active in recent months (which will change). Our differences, being different people who don't know each other, are in everything -- from writing style to arguments to IP addresses and anything else.

Moreover, despite not knowing when the user Dacy69 appeared or where and when he/she contributed, I am sure that a simple comparison with me would reveal that we do not overlap as much as Fadix and my other accusers (the usual suspects) combined.

Plus, what's the sense in having more than one identity, Fadix, you are expert, explain. Other than that, I demand an appology from the likes of Fadix for all the trash and dirt they pour out here on people.

From my part, as I am busy right now, starting next week I will be more present here and look into Urartu and all other issues in more details, it seems like there are many factless and outright false statements there. --AdilBaguirov 11:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urartu Research

Hey if this would make it easier for you here are lists of books you can read on Google with urartu or anything at all and i think it counts as a reference since its a book. Click here if you haven't tried this yet. Nareklm 12:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also to add Turkey has campaigns against Armenians disregarding the fact that Armenians ever existed in there lands please see Destruction of Armenian Khatchkars in Old Jougha (Nakhichevan) eastern turkey has always been populated by Kurds, Greeks, Armenians the origins are to Armenians and Kurds obviously and disregarding the fact that urartu were not ethically Armenians is wrong turkey is always going to do this to show that Armenians were never in turkey its disgusting what governments would go through and don't forget the changing of animal names in turkey the past years they had Armenian and Kurdish origins and they changed them completely so that the tribes or cultures that lived there never existed, and the complete destruction of monuments in Kars and other ancient Armenian capitals or main settlements. Nareklm 08:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

once again on Urartu

Hi SilkTork. I hate to disturb you again on the same question, but user Nareklm and Eupator again meddling with Urartu article. they are trying to impose in section of 'Ethnic Composition' the debate about the area of origin of Indo-European language. It is irrelavant to this section. And they are imposing a minority view (theory of Gamkrelidze-Ivanov) My proposed language mention that theory actually - I don't mind to mention opposite view.

They meddled with this section after your approval several times. I disregarded their minor changes to approved text but now it is too much! Someone has stop him!

Moreover, I am thinking whether it is eligible to report that activity as Wikistalking. E.g. Nareklm visited and edited all pages which I created or edited except one. I am really tired of his spying me.--Dacy69 17:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your labelling of my contributions as "meddling". Mind your civility and familiarize yourself with WP:OWN. You don't own the article. Since you opened that can of worms, deal with the facts. Everything added was properly sourced and the language is not my own, that was written by an admin who specializes in ancient history and lingustics, Dbachmann. I merely copied the text.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your language and actions speak for themselves.--Dacy69 17:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silk, I advice you to check the last contribution of Adil, since there is a new one now, go to that page and check his vote and see who just voted after. How am I supposed to assume good faith, when all the tests I have conducted point to socks and now appears that he uses socks to vote. Regards. Fad (ix) 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am so dumb to vote after him... This page I opened for Uratu case. SilkTork, could you stop all this harrasment. I have reported to Incident Board. No feedback yet. And about Urartu - you expressed your opinion once and it was completely disregarded.--Dacy69 01:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but that someone who misteriously is not active and become active just after Dacy69 is created and another time become active after another long silence, by voting just before Dacy69, yeh, dumb indeed(not to say all the same exact specific interests, the same grammar, the same way of paragraph structuring, the same web character, the same time zone, the same internet schedules, that the merging test will not differenciate either etc.). Using socks to vote is indeed enough for a checkusers I believe, but in this cases a proxy checker to check for open ports would be more precise. Fad (ix) 01:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt all your findings on similarities but I, as mentioned several times before, with two hands vote for necessary checking (which, I am certain, will establish that we are two different users) It is indeed interesting that certain users vote in your manner and support your editings and vise versa.--Dacy69 04:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Adil would ask for a check, he specialise on media information, more particuarly the internet, run a site and would know that using proxies or other ways are a must and he knows checkusers is IP based. This is not about supporting editing, this is about a user who has contributed the last time a month ago, only to revert to your changes and who would get informed of the RfD exactly at the same time frame as you and will vote only before you one month after his last edit (which was basically to revert to your edit). Since you are educated, tell me what is the probability that all those varriable which are supposed to be independent all show a correlation? Fad (ix) 04:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm now looking into this. I was held up on other issues - sorry for the delay. SilkTork 08:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fadix and others, you seem to know a lot about false identities and sockpuppet's -- I wonder why? I don't know who this Dacy69 is, but I have to say if I am ever in Canada, or you are on the East Coast of USA, let's get a beer and share our knowledge both about history and about the provocations and harrassment of the few usual suspects from among the Armenian users, who pull all stops to shut their opponents in the only way they can - by employing blackmail, harrassment and groundless attacks.

Dear SilkTork, please look into the activity of my accusers -- check, crosscheck and compare their activity, of how they all vote and edit in sync, and their IP addresses. And of course check with mine and Dacy's -- if he is in Canada, and I am in US, it makes it, generally, very easy to distinguish them. --AdilBaguirov 11:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know who this Dacy69 is, interesting though that after one month of silence you will vote just before Dacy69 and then somehow will find few hours after placing my accusation here out of anywhere else on Wikipedia, find this page and answer me back. As for how I know about socks? Well, let me explain you first how I knew so much about it,... an Azeris hacker having hacked 3 Armenian websites and who happened to have used various proxies from different countries. So you see, I have pretty much some experiences on how IP doesn't mean anything when we are dealing with Adil who happens to have a history in the cyberspace back in the old days in the newsgroups and known for his racism and who happen to be an expert on Internet informations and who runs a website. Don't play your ignorant, we both know had you wanted to impersonate, both IPs would not come from the same place. Fad (ix) 00:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, please also look at Eupator behavior and Urartu -- --Dacy69 15:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Eupator accusation below - I provided his quotation with links (e.g. "wash foam from mouth", "moronic", etc.) when he attacked me personnally. I reported these cases. He admits above that "since you opened this can of worms deals with the facts"). What can of worms? And what is an expression and attitude towards another editor. And now he asserts that it is me who is attacking him. I povided in talkpage Urartu that my edit is related to sources - sometimes exact quotation. Below he is ignoring it. My sources are controversial but his is not. And, my proposal on the reduction of Proto-Indo-European problem was almost identical to Dbachman. The latter did it now.

I am ready to have another admin to look at this issue.

Apparantly there are users who can't admit their faults, and then they are throwing accusation about biased admins.

I am fully ready for investigation of:

1. Urartu case - both manner of discussion, and dispute around the content
2. Behavior of mine, Eupator and other users

Since I started my activity in Wikipedia I was constantly attacked (see my talkpage), my edits with references was removed, constant accusation on sockpuppet, etc. I am ready to deal with the investigation.--Dacy69 23:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Ethnic Composition section of Urartu is written to everyone's satisfaction - is this matter closed? Call on me again is you have any more problems. Regards. SilkTork 08:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am actually absolutely OK with your admin work and help. And finally, it seems some agreement on Urartu.--Dacy69 13:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

SikTork, I hope you realize that in three years I have over 1000 articles on my Watchlist, most of them dealing with Armenia correct? Second of all, I have been checking your user page recently given the fact that Dacy69 has been throwing personal attaks against me on your page. I think I have aright see who's attacking me, why and where. I would like you to elaborate as to how I have become personal or emotional regarding Dacy69. How about you provide recent diffs? Has Dacy69 provided you recent diffs to back up his accusations? On what do you base these accusations? As far as I can see I have been mostly ignoring Dacy69's constant harassment and accusations since I have seen worse througout my time here but since you're dragging me into this it seems I have to take prompt punitive action. I have seen editors blocked for a long period of time for comments far less inflammatory than "Eupator should be banned from Wikipedia" or whatever else he said, yet you didn't even feel necessary to notify Dacy69 that such abusive comments are inappropriate at best! At this point i'm inclined to ask for the involvement of other admins. As for Urartu, Dacy69 introduced a strongly contested and controversial statement and worded it differently than his source. That was corrected. Now, unless you're saying that the references I provided are not academic or factual what si your problem with them? My additions, word for word are written by an admin Near Eastern expert User:Dbachmann. Either remove the entire section or accept the simple fact that there are various theories regarding that mattter. No offense but you ar enot familiar with the subject and you cannot possibly justify calling that sentence unfounded, inappropriate or most strikingly absurd provocative. The incorrectly worded sentence initially added by Dacy69 was provocative!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that editing of the Ethnic Composition section of Urartu is so sensitive, it might be helpful if everyone concerned discussed significant and possibly controversial changes on the Talk page before making an edit. It appears to me as an outsider that the article is making good progress, and it is becoming a well referenced and helpful article. Even though progress may be painful at times, you can all congratulate yourselves on the end result. Regards. SilkTork 08:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]