Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Apologies for the slow reply, I am quite busy at the time being with study, but when that dissipates I'll be sure to talk you up on the offer; thanks for the consideration.~CortalYXTalk?01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I was not part of the dispute RickK had. I was completely uninvolved. I was on a vacation back then. To but it bluntly I do not understand what you are getting at. -- Catchi? 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I think RickK got blocked for revert-warring. I do not clearly recall the details on that particular case but IIRC he was having an interaction (revert war) with SPUI ([1][2]) not me. He also seems to have wheel wared over SPUI's block. I was NOT the person blocking him and I was not revert/wheel waring either. While I did revert him once, that alone was not the reason for his block. He was only blocked for 24 hours which was pardoned several minutes later. I had taken the time and looked at the 3rr history as this particular case happened before we had 3rr archives. I have this link to the case which I was not a participant. In sum, I did not drive anyone away. My involvement with that particular case can be said to be minimal. -- Catchi? 18:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
How are edits by someone else my responsibility? Please do not get this the wrong way but it appears you are blaming me for SPUI's edits. SPUI might have just as easily picked some other case and things would end up the same way. I did not invite SPUI. In fact I did not even know SPUI... In fact I never liked SPUI. -- Catchi? 18:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi I have Commons:Commons:Project scope concerns on this image. Also the license is problematic as it needs to be GFDL per screen capture. -- Catchi? 10:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
How is any of that in the project scope? -- Catchi? 10:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a question for Commons. As I said, they seem to have a number of these and I have no idea what's been discussed with respect to them over there. --bainer (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I happen to be a commons admin which was why I was inquiring. I'll drop this issue for now since this is a non-critical issue and can be resolved later, preferably after the conclusion of the arbcom election. You may want to rename the image given some people may use it in a less than ideal manner. I'll keep you posted on this since I feel you'll have valuable input. -- Catchi? 12:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The redirection of WP:BANG to WP:POINT was done so as a gag. You are more than welcome to rerediect it to WP:BANGLADESH. -- Catchi? 12:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi cat. Now that it has been brought to the community attention that there is another user who's name is WhiteCat who predates your name change, I believe that your username is confusingly similar to this one, and may run afoul of WP:U. At very least, please consider implementing the ideas at WP:U#Username_disambiguation. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done, is that enough? -- Catchi? 12:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
That looks good to me, it's just an unfortunate situation when two editors in good standing have very similar user names. I think the disambig clears the problem now. Thanks for your co-operation White Cat. Ryan Postlethwaite15:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I suggest a similar disambig on the other users page with his consent. It may appear like a COI if I made the request myself. -- Catchi? 15:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Deletion nom: Civility nomination was on 10 December 2006. The intention was to rise community awareness and perhaps initiate a discussion on the issue. For well over a year Wikipedia:Civility had been a policy people had been quick to ignore. No one is willing to enforce it. The nomination itself was not the best of all decisions I had but it wasn't really disruptive either. I am suprised people have been bringing that up since its been over a year.
Signatue issue: It has been nearly 3 years since I have been a part of the wikipedia community. Some people do not really care too much about the signatures but people had always been allowed to update their own or even other peoples signatures from time to time. As for my specific case, I had updated only some of my signatures. I had not had time to update others as people like User:Centrx and etc started mass reverting my edits. I merely raised it to community attention on ANI. To this date no one has explained to me how my updates to my own sigs damages the project. Every banned action needs a reason after all. I have made every effort to deescalate the matter.
lolcats: I do not believe the issue was ever about "lolcats" as I haven't picked any random image. I merely objected the addition of an image to User:WhiteCat with the image description "TROLL KITTEH NEEDS MOAR DRAMA" to a userpage. The image was placed on User:WhiteCat page instead of User:White Cat to avoid a ban at least in Gurch's words. What more, he uploaded a second such image despite the objections. Such images had been speedy deleted before for trolling and uploaders have been banned indefinitely. Popular target has included people like Jimbo. So why is it that I am treated differently? I do not understand. And an additional note both Gurch and Miranda were temporarily banned and booted from the IRC channels over their conduct during this incident.
The reason I am posting this here is not for a defense - such a thing would be pointless. Instead the intention is a dialog and mutual understanding of each others position.
MfD of civility policy: if your intention was merely to raise people's awareness of the lack of enforcement of the civility policy, it would have been much better to raise this issue at the village pump. Nominating the policy for deletion, especially during your personal dispute with User:Elaragirl, only added drama to what could otherwise have been a productive discussion in another venue.
Signatures: I didn't follow that controversy too closely, but I am well aware that people can and do change their signatures. Here for example is one of my former signatures, which I used under my former User:Tachikoma account: Kyoko. That was before I requested a name change. As I recall, you had wanted to go through all instances of your prior signature and replace those with your current signature, even on pages which had been archived. Some people objected on the basis that changing an archive page is like tampering with history. I think there was also some concern about the block logs on your accounts being obscured. While I personally think that it's a little frivolous to want to change your signature on archived pages, I wouldn't have objected myself. What matters here is that you and several other people got into quite a conflict over a pretty minor issue.
The cat image: while I'm inclined to agree with you that Gurch should not have changed User:WhiteCat's page with out that user's permission, I don't think it was a good idea for you to post about this incident on WP:ANI without first asking Gurch why he had altered someone else's page, and with that particular image, and that particular user. Again, my concern is that your approach to this matter added drama to something that might have been settled between you and Gurch without administrative input.
I hope this message has explained things to your satisfaction. Let me also add that I'm considering striking out the "Strong" from my ArbCom opinion on your candidacy. This is something I've been thinking about since I first posted there, because adding the word "Strong" only makes my comment unnecessarily hurtful at a point when your candidacy is unlikely to succeed. I do hope that you will continue to contribute to Wikipedia following the election. Take care, --Kyoko15:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I'd like to continue this if you don't mind :) I have formated (indented) your comment and duplicated the thread for your convenience.
My dispute with User:Elaragirl was a very minor one. I found her general tone to be problematic, not just to me but to others. There were and still are others (even admins) who are impolite and dicky on a regular basis. I felt back then (and still do) that we need a serious amount of improvement on this issue. I thought nominating WP:CIVIL would generate such a discussion... Didn't work as I had hoped. In any case, I can't change what I did back then... If you take a look at some of the votes on the nom page, they are quite uncivil. What I am curious is what would you recommend I do to get this issue addressed?
Centrx considered all edits older than a day to be 'archived'. He even reverted my edits in my userspace. I stopped making signature alterations soon as people complained (over RC feed getting flooded mostly). However Centrx continued his slow paced mass revert despite this. Centrx continued reverting my edits for months. I initiated discussions with Centrx and even invited uninvolved 3rd parties to talk to Centrx. Sig fixes on archive pages are not banned (to my knowledge). As for the block log. For quite some time I have those linked on my userpage. My old sig does not generate a block log so I never completely understand that concern.
What you said would be what I would have done had my interaction with Gurch had been different. On IRC for example Gurch had been most unpleasant even when I was agreeing with him on an issue. He had actively done so over the past months (Deletion of WP:MIT (a project intended to verify free-images 'freeness' making them more commons compatible) per his speedy nom for example). That is why talking to him on this issue was pointless in my perspective. I have the access to delete the image in question from commons in the blink of an eye. I have initiated discussions merely to avoid a COI for the most part.
I do want to add that the nom page has been interesting so far. A number of support and oppose votes have been most intriguing. A good deal were particularly unhelpful and 'hurtful'. Your vote was not hurtful and on the contrary quite helpful as I have a better understanding of peoples' concerns now.
If you want to discuss the civility policy and how it is enforced, I suggest starting a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). That way perhaps you will get the discussion you desire.
Signature issue: like I said, I didn't follow it closely, but the very fact that people (not just you and Centrx) wrote a lot of text about it means that the alterations were controversial.
If you read the top of the WP:ANI page, it says in boldface "Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page." That's a step that you failed to take. You and Gurch may have a history of conflict, but I still think it would have been better to ask him first about his intentions, rather than post an ANI and inform him after the fact. If you felt uncomfortable approaching Gurch, you could also have asked User:Dmcdevit to ask him, as he was the admin who reverted Gurch's edit. You could also simply have allowed User:WhiteCat to respond for him/herself and not intervened personally. After all, you've said that you and Gurch don't get along. Any of these approaches would have generated less heat than going directly to ANI.
I am kind of confused. Should I avoid discussion of any kind in the future? My edits (signature alterations) came before the discussions I initiated. Had I not taken the issue to ani and instead revert wared, would that be more productive? I just still am uncertain what the community expected me to do. Should same thing happen again, how should I deal with it?
I have brought the issue to ANI for general discussion. Dmcdevit's revert came after my post to ANI. Dmcdevit probably would not know of the issue had it not been posted on the admins noticeboard. User:WhiteCat is an inactive user and like I explained his involvement in this case is simply because of the similarity of his username to mine - that what bothered me most in the whole case.
Signatures: I think most people in the community didn't understand why it was so important to you to change your signature on messages that you had already left on various pages. Changing your signature so that future messsages look different is one thing, while changing signatures on messages that you have already left is another. As you know, people's views on it ranged from seeing it as eccentric but harmless to outright disruptive. If I were in your place, I would have stopped the signature alterations if other people were concerned... but then again, I wouldn't personally have bothered to change old messages in the first place.
The cat image: in this case, I think you should have asked Gurch first before going on to ANI, not after. Any issue that is raised at ANI gets a lot of attention, and the very fact that the discussion is there rather than another venue sometimes leads to heightened tempers, and yes, drama.
Knowing Japanese: despite my name, I don't know much Japanese, because it wasn't spoken much when I was growing up, and I've never devoted enough time to properly learn it. --Kyoko17:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I forgot to add: I'm glad that you weren't hurt or offended by my oppose vote. I generally try to make my oppose comments constructive or at least non-bitey. --Kyoko17:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I did stop making the sig alterations. I had a total of 2000 such edits after which people started complaining. For the next few months after that one or two people mass reverted those edits contradicting Help:Reverting#Do not ("If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof."). I desired to remove as many references to my former nick as possible over privacy reasons as it may put me in real risk... I can't go to the details for obvious reasons... I don't think anyone needs to cite reasons for trivial edits. Although people had been reverting my sig alterations, none had actually had a serious discussion with me - even despite my attempts in talking to them.
I really think when someone is being disruptive it should be addressed in ani. By the same analogy nothing should be posted to ani as anything posted there is automatic drama. I have talked to Gurch numerous times, talking to him over such issues is pointless IMHO. :/
Unfortunate! I could have used your skills had you developed them. :P
Any oppose vote not intended to insult or annoy me is casted with a positive intention by nature. It is generally not that hard to distinguish that. Otherwise I wouldn't bother posting on your talk page at all. :)
Hello White Cat, I'm resetting the indent to make it easier to write.
Signatures: You should be aware that if you want to obscure your former nick, you ironically just draw more attention to it by changing old messages. This makes all of those alterations appear in "Recent changes". In the future, I hope that you will reconsider making such changes should you decide to change your signature once again.
Cat image: If you feel that it's unproductive for you to personally approach Gurch, perhaps you could explain your situation to another person, perhaps an admin, who could explain your concerns on your behalf.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Terra Prime, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Terra Prime. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The estimates vary. Not in all countries censuses are taken in which ethnicity is asked, so for an elaborate discussion on numbers you should go to the demographics of those countries mentioned. I myself have named a few sources for my edits the Soviet census of 1989 and ethnologue, all the other numbers are based on sources too. Margins are large because we are dealing with estimates in a large number of countries. I do not see the problem. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello White Cat, I wanted to check if you had further questions concerning our recent conversation. I archived my talk page because it was getting lengthy, and I will be taking a wikibreak soon. I hope you didn't interpret my message archival as a way to brush you off. It just seemed as if you had no further questions, based on your contribs. Happy editing, Kyoko15:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
None I can think of :) -- Catchi? 18:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:Subspace Node Map Freespace.jpg)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Subspace Node Map Freespace.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
May I suggest you upload this image and other images with a free license to commons? You can do so using Commons:Special:Upload. -- Catchi? 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No sweat I have legal copies of all the FreeSpace games except Silent Threat expansion. About the node map. I recall getting it off of the official site. That was some time ago - well over 2 years. It might have been added to the official website despite being a 'fan creation' as you suggested. Volition had done so in the past, especially for missions.
We certainly have this official map that establishes most of the nodes. Everything else should be in line with all briefing connections in the game. It is not OR to duplicate that info. I suppose we could verify all node related info not mentioned on the official map I just linked. We do know a lot about the subspace nodes from the briefings. For example we do know that the Sol (at the end of the first game) and Capella nodes were severed (at the end of the second game). I suppose we could cite exactly which mission establishes node connections. How does that sound to you?
Well, at the very least the copyright status of the image you posted is in question, and so probably is insuitable. A recreated map from a source map is perhaps borderline original research. A better solution would be to just include the original map you cited above, and get permission to do so. Even in that case, the caption to the image was overlong and didn't need to say much more than "This is a jump node map of the Terran-Vasudan region of space." Xihr (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Image captions are supposed to explain the contents of the image in question. That is the very point of them. The reader should understand what about the image is significant. The summaries can be longer if an additional description is needed. Explanation over the alterations to the map (destruction of the nodes) only makes sense. The summary wasn't that long either, a mere 3 sentences. Consider various captions on the article September 11, 2001 attacks and how long they are. Mind that these are description of the photos and not a map. Or consider the article Tibet with 6 sentences as the caption.
A recreated map from a source map is not any where NEAR original research. We do it all the time on a wide range of articles such as various maps on countries, world and etc (see: Image:McDonaldsWorldLocations.svg). If a node between two star systems is mentioned on a briefing in the game, thats more than adequate to construct such a map. There is noting original of using information established in the game itself to construct an image. Consider reviewing this: Wikipedia:No original research#Original_images
We do not need any permission to use images under fair use. Fair use by nature is use without permission for educational purposes. If you mean getting free license permissions that is unlikely to happen.
Please notify me on my talk page so I know you posted a reply.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Since you've shown interest or made some contributions to Vasa (ship), I'd like to notify you that it has been nominated as an FAC. Your insights and comments would be much appreciated there.
Feel free to view the substantial edits I've done to the article, actually. I've improved it, found citations, regulated the formatting on the pre-existing citations, hacked out a bunch of useless stuff, and generally made it pretty. But just remember the only reason Jackyboy even brought this to your attention is because he disagreed with a comment I made in an unrelated deletion discussion. (And no, I am not wikistalking him in return, I was merely curious to see if he had reverted anything else I had edited. That's how I found this talkpage.) Howa0082 (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am in no hurry. Until the rfar concludes, Until then I will make little or preferably no edit to fiction related topics. I'll abide by the decision there. I do not want to make a futile attempt to improve articles in the meanwhile if all those articles will end up getting deleted w/o discussion. -- Catchi? 20:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Would you please provide a few examples of TTN redirecting articles without discussion? I can only find cases where he has provided warning on talk pages.Kww (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
A warning template is no discussion. A monologue is also no discussion. He may be using a merge template but a good number of times he has no edits to the target merge article. On occasions he has removed/blank articles despite a discussion. Please see the arbcom evidence page for the examples. -- Catchi? 21:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Your use of the phrase "without discussion" is quite misleading. He seems to always post advance warning, and responds to any discussion from people that state an intention to improve the article. I see no evidence of him refusing to engage in discussion, or failing to respond to comments founded in policy.Kww (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is plenty of evidence showing him revert waring. One such example is [3]. I have linked so on my statement to arbcom on the linked case. Please have a read of it as many of the issues you ask me is answered there. You are more than welcome to conduct your own research.
Drumhead discussions with only one possible outcome (any other outcome will be ignored) is not really a discussion. Initiating a discussion or posting merge templates is not adequate to make bulk edits. The very reason we ask people to "discuss" is to promote a collaborative environment. I see not a whole lot of collaboration from TTN. I do see bot like edits.
TTN's use of the merge template is particularly misleading. Also the problem does not only involve TTN. There are others.
I can only return the best wishes - but with this full bag! -- Catchi? 12:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hope you and yours are having a nice holiday time. I have an almost white cat, called Blue. I'll try and get a pic of her and let you know when it is uploaded here. Thanks, SqueakBox20:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments1 person in discussion
This is very clearly a far worse image than the one you have replaced it with - a typical washed-out Yorck project scan from a 50-year-old book. Please reverse this imediately! I am very concerned that you could possibly think this the better image and would be grateful if you could explain your reasoning, preferably at on en WP. diff on enJohnbod23:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hi. OK so what is the issue again? The other version is higher resolution and feels better. Your version is simply darker. -- Catchi? 23:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
No, it is much richer and has far better colour values. Your preferred version is washed out. Caravaggio is famously dark - that is why the image is at Chiaroscuro. I am concerned because when I can be bothered to check these bot-changes to so-called "improved" images they are often worse. Do you actually know what works like this look like in the original? I have removed the tag on Commons on the other image - is there anything else needed to stop the replacement process? Johnbod (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
It is trivially easy for me to revert the bot edits. I will do this now. I will quote this thread too. -- Catchi? 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I think I have reverted all the en:WP changes. But what can we do to stop futre occurences? I saw the original of this a year or so ago btw. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
The best solution is finding a high quality image of high resolution. We have a high quality image with low resolution which is not good. Where is the source of the image located? A nearby wikipedian can take a photo of it for example.
In the future DO NOT revert CommonsDelinker. On the pages you reverted commons delinker a link to this thread was not generated. I could have deleted either version and you would have generated redlinks. Manual reverts of commonsdelinker creates problems and no benefit.
It is in Italy, & not supposed to be photographed (of course). An amateur photo would be worse than either of these anyway; you need special lighting - it is about 2m high. I won't revert Delinker if you don't tag superior images for replacement - deal? Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
The museum may have a better quality image for our taking. Museums typically have these DVDs full of the content inside the museum so people visiting can take the photos. So that may be an option. You could contact the museum for a better image as well.
Commons has over 2 million media. We commons admins try to juggle these 2 million images trying to get the best ones for the +250 wikis these images are used at. This isn't very easy as there are so few of us around. It makes our job more difficult and time consuming when people contradict CommonsDelinker. We can't force anyone to obey us but all we ask is to let us work from a central location. So I ask you not to revert CommonsDelinker even if you are 100% right to do so. Just page me or some other commons admin and we will sort the issue centrally. I or any commons admin may make a mistake. This is no big deal and it would be easier for everybody if we do this.
Well I appreciate your prompt response & will do so in the future. The better image is actually far better than the vast majority of our images of paintings, a great number of which are, like the poorer version of this, scans from books over 50 years old with similar faded & washed out values (Yorck project etc), no matter how high the resolution. This painting is actually in a church, as you can see from the file description. I remain concerned that decisions like this are being taken; perhaps you could let me know if you are tempted to replace any more images of old master paintings. I am rather distrustful of Commons procedures here, especially after finding this 1930s reproduction replacing the one of an original (yes looking more faded) in the Met NY, which now is hidden away], only accesible from the file of the fake (sorry repro). It was clear from the discussion on this that knowledge of older artworks is in very short supply on Commons. If this can happen to the most famous image in Japanese graphics, God knows what is going on elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I cant remember how many images I juggled today so I can't make any such promises. I do however invite you to work on commons. You could help better categorize painting images and work on the quality. You could even help with the featured pictured thing as well as commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Your expert opinions would be most welcome. -- Catchi? 02:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I do a certain amount of categorising there, but only see these deletion & replacement tags when they crop up on articles I watch. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
You are welcome to use the undeletion process (COM:UNDEL) if you disagree with a deletion. There is no easy way to monitor the RC feed of commons. -- Catchi? 03:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is counter-productive; I did block Fedayee for repeating accusations of sockpuppetry. It is quite likely that there is offwiki canvassing going on here, but the article is on the noticeboards, so it will sort itself out in due course. John Vandenberg (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
I dealt with sockpuppets from the Armenia-Azerbaijan nonsense for quite sometime. For example I was rather active on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Artaxiad: (page history). I helped expose a good number of Artaxiad's sockpuppets. That #Raw_data was generated with my intervention. So yes, I have been dealing with this issue. I merely had taken a long break as dealing with this is more then stressful as you probably agree.
I did not randomly go to Penwhale, he the person placing VartanM under the restrictions and I merely pointed out identical edits by Andranikpasha. All this was before the issue was on the noticeboards.
I merely do not want any of the Armenia-Azerbaijan nonsense leaking to that specific article. Now that the problem is under scope, I do not believe we will see any more of the nonsense on that article.
I clearly am not the source of the problem here and would welcome a little more courtesy. That was the first time I used the word "sockpuppet" in months.
Is there any way I can help you regarding either this or some other problem?
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
